On 04/02/2019 07:33 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
> On 03/07/2019 03:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> OK, that makes me feel better about it. It's presumably much easier to
>> upgrade to 5.2 from 5.0 or 5.1 than it would be from 4.x.
>>
How complicated is the fix to prevent the crashes? Would
On 03/07/2019 03:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/03/19 22:27 +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/06/2019 01:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 06/03/19 09:20 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>>> On 03/06/2019 12:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely wro
On 03/06/2019 01:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/03/19 09:20 +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 03/06/2019 12:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 06/03/19 02:43 +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/26/2019 04:23 PM,
On 03/06/2019 12:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/03/19 02:43 +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/26/2019 04:23 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note jemalloc >= 5.1 is required to fix a bug with 0 sizes.
>>>>
>>>>
On 02/26/2019 04:23 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
>
>> Note jemalloc >= 5.1 is required to fix a bug with 0 sizes.
>>
>> How serious is the bug? What are the symptoms?
>>
> I've updated the commit summary to say it's a crash.
> Arguably that's better than mem corruption.
>
>> It looks like 5.1.0 is
On 02/26/2019 05:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23/02/19 02:04 +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> Attached is a simple patch which has been extensively tested within
>> Facebook,
>> and is enabled by default in our code base.
>>
>> Passing the size to th
Attached is a simple patch which has been extensively tested within
Facebook,
and is enabled by default in our code base.
Passing the size to the allocator allows it to optimize deallocation,
and this was seen to significantly reduce the work required in jemalloc,
with about 40% reduction in CPU
