On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 11:27:08AM +0300, Onur Özkan wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 02:36:01 -0400 > Yury Norov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Compare the cost of allocating and freeing variable-sized regions using > > a bitmap, IDA and a Maple Tree. All implementations process the same > > randomly generated sequence of region sizes, ranging from 1 to 32 entries, > > until the configured capacity is exhausted. > > > > Run the benchmark at several capacities to show how the approaches > > scale. Report allocation and free times separately because bitmap, > > IDA and Maple Tree removal have substantially different costs. > > > > On x86/kvm, the output example is: > > > > type alloc (ns) free (ns) capacity memory (B) > > bitmap 179573071 342105 1000000 125000 > > IDA 46555636 33931498 1000000 134864 > > maple 18629665 19741396 1000000 1548304 > > bitmap 1630912 30933 100000 12504 > > IDA 6144785 3354590 100000 14288 > > maple 1745026 1825032 100000 155408 > > bitmap 28448 3374 10000 1256 > > IDA 418978 333641 10000 1872 > > maple 185398 211138 10000 15632 > > bitmap 2253 610 1000 128 > > IDA 42755 36432 1000 144 > > maple 19728 23474 1000 1552 > > > > Reported IDA and Maple Tree memory figures exclude slab overhead > > and transient allocations. The Maple Tree figure is additionally > > a lower-bound estimate that assumes fully occupied leaf nodes and > > excludes internal nodes. > > The report itself doesn't make it obvious. I think "memory (B)" can be > misleading. Perhaps we should use a clearer column name or add a short note > before/after the report for explaining the columns?
OK, will add.
