On Oct 27, 2009, at 9:10 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
> From a performance perspective, it may be critical to use tcmalloc
> to match safari performance. It was literally a 50% speedup on most
> of the DOM perf when running on WinXP.
Yeah, I've profiled some of the Dromaeo benchmarks, and the DOM-
mutation test in particular is spending huge amounts of time in malloc
and free.
Should I open a bug on this task, then?
> I suspect this will use the version of TCMalloc which is embedded in
> WTF. I'd recommend against this approach. We should try to use a
> single allocator for the entire app
I agree; no sense linking in two different versions of tcmalloc.
> There is a disadvantage. I suspect Apple is farther along in
> optimizing the mac-specific optimizations of tcmalloc than the
> google3 guys are.
I would say more generally "client-specific optimizations". Some of
the recent memory-bloat issues found by the Memory taskforce (jamesr
in particular) show that baseline tcmalloc is tuned for server
environments where memory footprint is much less of an issue.
—Jens
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
