This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
> > as to the linux's memory management, suppose a program has > > 30 threads. each thread is allocating and deallocating memory. > > > > does linux block the other 29 threads when thread <X> wants > > to malloc/free? Usually, no. Only when two (or more) threads want to simultaneously free() chunks from _one_ particular arena, all those threads except for one will be blocked. In practice, this is very rare. malloc() will actually _never_ block unless more memory is needed from the kernel and the sbrk() or mmap() system call blocks. > how about other threads/processes in the process > > table? Not quite sure, but generally I would expect them to be unaffected by a malloc() or free() in a particular process, unless there is (heavy) swapping activity going on. > > in a regular, single-processor system, my original C++ program > > spent 50% of its time in malloc/free. i reduced this time very > > significantly by implementing memory pools. the basic algorithm is fairly > > easy to split up across threads. hence linux SMP for more performance. > > but i am wondering if i might be walking into a "technical snare" > > with respect to linux and memory management. Linux's malloc may perform well enough so you don't need to implement pools yourself for SMP. Regards, Wolfram. -- `Surf the sea, not double-u three...' wmglo@dent.med.uni-muenchen.de
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |