Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/10/30/07:17:20
> From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
> To: "John Machin" <sjmachin AT lexicon DOT net DOT au>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:33:52 +0000
> Subject: Re: malloc()
> "John Machin" <sjmachin AT lexicon DOT net DOT au> wrote:
>
> > As mentioned in some discussions in this list, and in the
> > comments in malloc.c, the algorithm that is used allocates (or is
> > supposed to allocate) blocks of size 2^n. Of this, 4 bytes are
> > overhead. So a malloc(2044) -> 2048-byte block, malloc(2045) ->
> > 4096-byte block, etc. This means (approximately) an overhead of 0%
> > to 100% on the requested size, or a waste of 0% to 50% of the memory
> > grabbed.
> >
> > HOWEVER, experimental results, confirmed by reading the source, show
> > that the simplistic algorithm has been twiddled for request sizes
> > over 2044 bytes so that it skews the world by 4096 bytes. The
> > results are:
> [snipped values]
> You are missing something: If you have enough swap it doesn't matter
> because the memory that you allocate and don't touch just wastes
> virtual memory but is well remaped by the DPMI host so your % aren't
> true. Is hard to say the real waste.
Oh. I thought if you allocated a page of memory (4096 bytes) and
touched only the first byte then it was all mapped ... what is the
unit of mapping???
>
> > This could be fixed, but I am puzzled why DJ hasn't snarfed a better
> > malloc from somewhere -- I understand his comments about GNU GPL
> > that he made in a posting, but what about public-domain stuff???
> Eli pointed why and I'll point an additional thing:
> DJGPP's malloc is HYPER fast. I know how it works (I even modified
> it) and I know how the Borland's one works (I have the sources) and
> beleive me, in a program that uses heavilly the heap the DJGPP's
> version is much, MUCH more faster.
Speed is not the only consideration. Robustness in the face of varied
patterns of malloc/free requests may be another consideration for
some ... Allocators which don't split/coalesce free blocks can break
down if the program allocates a large number of blocks of size x,
frees them, allocates/frees ditto sizes y,z, etc (where x,y,z etc
belong in different power-of-two buckets) --- unrealistic? No, e.g.
program == text editor, x == average len of source file line, y ==
average len of record in data file1,...
>
> > Pardon me if this has been considered and rejected it for
> > reasons that I can't guess, but I'd suggest that "Doug Lea's malloc"
> > would be a good substitute. I got it off the web, whacked in a few
> > #defines, compiled it, and happiness prevailed; see below which is
> > the first few lines of the source file with my changes and his
> > "advertisement" and URLs.
>
> I got just a portion of the file.
>
Like I said, "the first few lines of the source file".
John Machin
1/27 Auburn Grove
Hawthorn East, VIC 3123, Australia
Phone: +61-3-98130561
- Raw text -