standalone jemalloc is slower than glibc's malloc (ptmalloc)

[Justin Lebar]

> Here, I build standalone jemalloc-2.2.5 library for MIPS architecture and used.

I don't think anyone (or at least, anyone else) is testing jemalloc on
MIPS.  So it's not entirely surprising that jemalloc would be slow
there.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:32 AM, amol pise <amolpise15 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Jasone,
>
> With respect to my previous mail, I have performed few benchmark
> testing mentioned in the
> http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/jemalloc/bsdcan2006/jemalloc.pdf on
> MIPS target
>
> The results are as below:
>
> Benchmark Test:   CCA
> -----------------------------------
>  With glibc malloc (ptmalloc):
> {{{
>  # time ./bin/cca -f sample.c
>  real    0m12.668s
> user    0m12.172s
> sys     0m0.276s
>  }}}
>
> With jemalloc:
> {{{
> # time LD_PRELOAD=/devel/usr/lib/jemalloc.so ./bin/cca -f sample.c
> real    0m13.451s
> user    0m12.948s
> sys     0m0.252s
>  }}}
>
> Here sample.c is the file of lines 17364.
>
> Benchmark Test:  sh6bench
> -----------------------------------------
>  With glibc malloc (ptmalloc):
> {{{
> #./sh6bench
>  Total elapsed time: 94.00 (94.6600 CPU)
> }}}
>
> With jemalloc:
> {{{
> # LD_PRELOAD=/devel/usr/lib/libjemalloc.so ./sh6bench
>  Total elapsed time: 119.00 (119.4100 CPU)
> }}}
>
> Here, I build standalone jemalloc-2.2.5 library for MIPS architecture and used.
>
> The both the benchmark result shows "jemalloc is slower than glibc's malloc".
>
> I wanted to use jemalloc library but these results disappointed me.
>
> Please let me know is there are any way to improve the performace of
> jemalloc in this regards.
>
> Please help me. Waiting for the reply.
>
> Thank You,
> Amol Pise
>
>
>
>
> On 4/11/12, amol pise <amolpise15 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I have check the performance of the jemalloc vs glibc's malloc
>> (ptmalloc) using complex test in libxml2 package
>> i.e. "runtest". This program allocate many memory of different size
>> and supported multi-thread.
>>
>> The results are seen as below:
>>
>>
>> With glibc's malloc (ptmalloc):
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> # LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.libs time .libs/runtest
>> {{{
>> ## XML regression tests
>> ## XML regression tests on memory
>> :
>> <snip>
>> Total 2820 tests, no errors
>> 67.68user 54.96system 2:02.89elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
>> 0maxresident)k
>> }}}
>>
>>
>> With jemalloc:
>> ------------------
>> # LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.libs LD_PRELOAD=/devel/usr/lib/libjemalloc.so time
>> .libs/runtest
>> {{{
>> ## XML regression tests
>>
>> ## XML regression tests on memory
>>
>> :
>> <snip>
>> Total 2820 tests, no errors
>> 76.89user 55.70system 2:12.72elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
>> 0maxresident)k
>> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+0minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>> }}}
>>
>> Here it is observed jemalloc seems slowers than glibc malloc (ptmalloc)
>>
>>
>> I used jemalloc-2.2.5 from http://www.canonware.com/download/jemalloc/
>>
>> Is it mean jemalloc() is slower than glibc's malloc ?
>> Is there any way to improve the speed performance of jemalloc in this
>> regard?
>>
>> I am waiting for the reply.
>>
>> Thank You,
>> Amol Pise
>>
> _______________________________________________
> jemalloc-discuss mailing list
> jemalloc-discuss at canonware.com
> http://www.canonware.com/mailman/listinfo/jemalloc-discuss