Yes Mike
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Linus Upson <li...@google.com> wrote: > Does all this work with Purify? > Linus > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Mike Belshe <mbel...@google.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Dean McNamee <de...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> Do we have numbers on how the 4 allocates compare on those tests (page >>> cycler, etc)? >> >> >> I do - I sent some of them around a few days ago. >> >> Summary: >> jemalloc and tcmalloc are pretty close; where jemalloc is a little more >> compact and tcmalloc is a smidge faster. Overall jemalloc looks pretty >> darned good. The source to tcmalloc is more hackable though. >> >> The windows heap varies by platform, as they did a lot of work on the >> Vista heap, including making LFH the default. But both jemalloc and >> tcmalloc considerably outperform the windows heaps both on size and perf. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Mike Belshe<mbel...@google.com> wrote: >>> > In an effort to make it easier to test debugging heaps and allocators, >>> I >>> > just landed a changelist which makes our allocators switchable at >>> runtime. >>> > Unlike Obama's plan for healthcare, this CL is about giving you more >>> > choice. >>> > From an environment variable, you can now switch between 4 different >>> > allocators. >>> > set CHROME_ALLOCATOR=tcmalloc // default - use TC Malloc >>> > set CHROME_ALLOCATOR=jemalloc // use JEMalloc, the allocator >>> also >>> > used in firefox >>> > set CHROME_ALLOCATOR=winheap // use the built in windows heap >>> > set CHROME_ALLOCATOR=winlfh // use the low-fragmentation >>> windows >>> > heap >>> > >>> > This change also contains a fix to tcmalloc to more aggressively return >>> > pages (in other words, actually return them sometimes). Without this >>> fix, >>> > Chrome grows but doesn't shrink. As a result, this change *DOES* have >>> a >>> > negative performance impact on chrome (we're now returning pages fairly >>> > aggressively) >>> > Good news: >>> > - Our memory test shows a 4% drop (not terribly significant) >>> > >>> > >>> http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/vista-release-dual-core/memory/report.html?history=150&graph=commit_charge >>> > Neutral news: >>> > - The Moz page cycler shows no change: >>> > >>> > >>> http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/vista-release-dual-core/moz/report.html?history=150 >>> > Bad news >>> > - The JS page cycler shows a 3% drop. >>> > >>> > >>> http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/xp-release-dual-core/morejs/report.html?history=150 >>> > I'm working on this. >>> > Let me know if you have problems or feedback. Also, if you do play >>> around >>> > with the allocator choices, let me know your experience. >>> > Mike >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
