X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=F2DOFXI
	8KoyRevdrhoVT2gLpJpyAmzUvSeBH9TOu3sY+zPzl96eUOoParThHSFQIB3HlUQ/
	sv2tfD7gmzmDBSocEPmpWQ/38XxXWK8ArV4+95Y8DN7kKmO4RGEnykr8ofiiA+x0
	4XzK0CTVtsxkFWey7N8kza4dSovsX4nIcdLg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; s=default; bh=AnC+9Qg91uUhl
	AVlvmWZGae94y4=; b=R95g78ufBkWiJxTrclOl3hJw2ofHI1nksH6v+iJobDGpj
	waSzbF7TDHZXIQw3j2yK85thr+PSbScNbjElzGJXtgOD7DSjB0aW6W7eEOQcqkca
	I6TvXAxMWrV/mOpDyk8dWS4YN9jm20IRJEOpgtT4vG1dcJtWlurj41qSWNBAxY=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=prog, assist
X-HELO: mail-io0-f179.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date         :message-id:subject:to;        bh=Oh0zAhDy/MDRmdgmwSRD4UP/e4/+20CqvLF2wDtgdI0=;        b=H9npiDbAZZnpSPJPmiG028KhTG5FS+m/zJgnQGdd1seEipYr9rRxVcl9FzeYrG7Le+         39IgXR7txqMOLs+2xh+da5nr/wxoxyKTuSayUCqGCSUXInnvPth4ty1Q7fp90l7uwErH         qczYqmfUy2W/j5+aOQsxZBxY2bzSqiCOQ7s7nfAfAbm/GI+Wlg7Sd/FFJKky0qBB1rgy         ZAHtSYb8rExRM99aJkyTJYexhI4fC/UOs7tz44M6sjcOHtDq5El4NofI5EIbDx7ii3DW         an06jjuY/LxYG3o55ffoXqzgqbnMQi2A+9bcU0gqaaDFIBXoS3cTNh9uSRorWCXHR15L         AyPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytest6Q56V1w+7uTBV/Sb3af/aFSxFDVYPmYxYSKIWvgLOlKmkC/	LFnwrauA5vqbqs5z63F8OVNjJa5fjN369BfquvQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovEYn4VPX6uHY8mSjQqrp0mg/bUKqvOLpg6Iu8G/IfLV5ypC2jjbnxqyvhTuNKSGD3o2sSBRr0ppL6dOMC+8rY=
X-Received: by 10.107.139.139 with SMTP id n133mr8817966iod.238.1515837865476; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:04:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180112143339.GE24623@calimero.vinschen.de>
References: <CAD8GWsvxzFe0dPnxO-odTY+EG5XOAApLjcOSN5d7vXhtLW0GmQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <46515148-9f8e-6eae-69f9-9bf20921097a AT t-online DOT de> <20180112143339 DOT GE24623 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
From: Lee <ler762 AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 05:04:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD8GWss8tFHF7NB+XBJ0Sqa8A=CJRx2=wsuj4H=7ZeJ-pwD6JA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: calloc speed difference
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 1/12/18, Corinna Vinschen  wrote:
> On Jan 12 15:06, Christian Franke wrote:
>> Lee wrote:
>> > Why is the cygwin gcc calloc so much slower than the
>> > i686-w64-mingw32-gcc calloc?
>> >    1:12 vs 0:11
    <.. snip example prog ..>
>>
>> Could reproduce the difference on an older i7-2600K machine:
>>
>> Cygwin: ~20s
>> MinGW: ~4s
     <.. snip possible explanation ..>
>
> But then again, Cygwin's malloc *is* slow, particulary in
> memory-demanding multi-threaded scenarios since that serializes all
> malloc/free calls.
>
> The memory handling within Cygwin is tricky.  Attempts to replace good
> old dlmalloc with a fresher jemalloc or ptmalloc failed, but that only
> means the developer (i.e., me, in case of ptmalloc) was too lazy...
> busy! I mean busy... to pull this through.
>
> Having said that, if somebody would like to take a stab at replacing
> dlmalloc with something leaner, I would be very happy and assist as
> much as I can.

I just took a quick look at some malloc code & docs and I know enough
to know that I'm not going to be the one taking a stab at replacing
dlmalloc.  Sorry :(

Lee

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple