On 15.12.2006, at 19:59, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
http://www.nedprod.com/programs/portable/nedmalloc/index.html
Hm... not bad at all:
This was under Solaris 2.8 on a Sun Blade2500 (Sparc) 1GB memory:
Testing standard allocator with 8 threads ...
This allocator achieves 2098770.683107ops/sec under 8 threads
Testing nedmalloc with 8 threads ...
This allocator achieves 1974570.587561ops/sec under 8 threads
Testing Tcl alloc with 8 threads ...
This allocator achieves 1449969.176647ops/sec under 8 threads
Now on a SuSE Linux, a 1.8GHz Intel:
Testing standard allocator with 8 threads ...
This allocator achieves 1752893.072620ops/sec under 8 threads
Testing nedmalloc with 8 threads ...
This allocator achieves 2114564.246869ops/sec under 8 threads
Testing Tcl alloc with 8 threads ...
This allocator achieves 1460851.824732ops/sec under 8 threads
The Tcl library was compiled for threads and uses the zippy
allocator. This is how I compiled the test program from the
nedmalloc package:
gcc -O -g -o test test.c -lpthread -DNDEBUG -DTCL_THREADS -I/usr/
local/include -L/usr/local/lib -ltcl8.4g
I had to make some tweaks as they have a problem in pthread_islocked()
private call. Also, I expanded the testsuite to include Tcl_Alloc/
Tcl_Free
in addition.
If I run this same thing on other platforms I get more/less same
results with one notable exception:
o. nedmalloc is always faster then standard or zippy, except on
Sun Sparc
where the built-in malloc is the fastest
o. zippy (Tcl) allocator is always the slowest among the three
Now, I imagine, the nedmalloc test program may not be telling all the
truth
(i.e. may be biased towards nedmalloc)...
It would be interesting to see some other metrics...
Cheers
Zoran
