On 07.06.2011 17:22, Niklas Nebel wrote:
On 07.06.2011 13:15, tora - Takamichi Akiyama wrote:
As many already know, malloc() is too general and too expensive.
Moreover, free() is much more expensive than malloc().
e.g. a source code of malloc() in glibc:
http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=malloc/malloc.c
We use our own implementation, rtl_allocateMemory (see
sal/rtl/source/alloc*). But of course the point remains valid: Both
allocation and deallocation take time.
Even though current OpenOffice.org runs as a multi-thread process,
it runs as if it is a single thread. So, we could have several options
to implement its underlying memory allocation mechanism for the specific
purposes of OpenOffice.org.
If there was only a single thread, we could get rid of quite some
locking overhead. But in fact, with clipboard, UNO acceptor thread and
such stuff, we have just enough multithreading going on to cause the
overhead, without the benefit of actually doing work in parallel.
Properly using a read-only string class (at least in code that might be
accessed in multiple threads) could also prevent locking overhead.
Regards,
Mathias
--
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Oracle: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Please don't reply to "nospamfor...@gmx.de".
I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org
For additional commands send email to sy...@openoffice.org
with Subject: help
