This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2] Add malloc micro benchmark
- From: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco dot Dijkstra at arm dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "carlos at redhat dot com" <carlos at redhat dot com>, "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, nd <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 12:12:06 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add malloc micro benchmark
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Wilco dot Dijkstra at arm dot com;
- Nodisclaimer: True
- References: <DB6PR0801MB2053641333453CE91496266E83190@DB6PR0801MB2053.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (message from Wilco Dijkstra on Tue, 2 Jan 2018 18:20:04 +0000),<xnr2r86qwm.fsf@greed.delorie.com>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
DJ Delorie wrote:
> What other tests do is create a second test that just #include's the
> first test, and set an environment variable in the Makefile specific to
> that test. Adding an ABI just for a test is a big hammer, although we
> could discuss adding tcache to mallopt() as a seperate topic.
Yeah but the makefiles are already insanely complex. Adding the new
benchmark to the makefile took more than 10x as much time as writing
the test itself...
> I don't have any objection to adding tcache to mallopt (although please
> add all three tunables if you do), just saying we should discuss it as
> an ABI change separately.
It doesn't have to be an external ABI, I'd suggest keeping this internal to
GLIBC to make testing and benchmarking easier.
Wilco