From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shaohua Li Subject: Re: [PATCH] mremap: add MREMAP_NOHOLE flag --resend Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:38:27 -0700 Message-ID: <20150319163827.GA3006724@devbig257.prn2.facebook.com> References: <20150318153100.5658b741277f3717b52e42d9@linux-foundation.org> <20150319050826.GA1591708@devbig257.prn2.facebook.com> <20150318222246.bc608dd0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150318222246.bc608dd0.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, danielmicay-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Rik van Riel , Hugh Dickins , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Andy Lutomirski List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:22:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:08:26 -0700 Shaohua Li wrote: > > > > Daniel also had microbenchmark testing results for glibc and jemalloc. > > > Can you please do this? > > > > I run Daniel's microbenchmark too, and not surprise the result is > > similar: > > glibc: 32.82 > > jemalloc: 70.35 > > jemalloc+mremap: 33.01 > > tcmalloc: 68.81 > > > > but tcmalloc doesn't support mremap currently, so I cant test it. > > But Daniel's changelog implies strongly that tcmalloc would benefit > from his patch. Was that inaccurate or is this a difference between > his patch and yours? There is no big difference, except I fixed some issues. Daniel didn't post data for tcmalloc, I suppose it's potential mremap can make tcmalloc faster too, but Daniel can clarify. Thanks, Shaohua