> On Jan 21, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Jason Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2015, at 1:25 PM, D'Alessandro, Luke K <[email protected]> > wrote: >>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Jason Evans <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Can you instead set malloc_conf (with appropriate mangling) to >>> "lg_dirty_mult:-1”? >> >> Ah, maybe? I didn’t realize that we could mangle those up front, the opt >> code can be pretty opaque :-) That would be good enough for my purposes. So >> if my configuration normally generates the symbol as >> “prefix_je_opt_lg_dirty_mult”, then can I use that fully mangled name? > > You can use PREFIX_MALLOC_CONF=lg_dirty_mult:-1 in the environment, or you > can use prefix_malloc_conf = "lg_dirty_mult:-1" in C code. There should be a > distinct *MALLOC_CONF and *malloc_conf for each version of jemalloc you link > into your application.
Perfect, thanks. >> As a side note, we run into some symbols that aren’t properly mangled to >> link against two jemalloc instances. At some point (soon) we’ll submit an >> upstream patch to mangle them. > > I just integrated a patch for this today > (https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/pull/185). Great. Internal communication latency, I didn’t realize that went in already. > > Thanks, > Jason _______________________________________________ jemalloc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.canonware.com/mailman/listinfo/jemalloc-discuss
