From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37255) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zk7jG-0007Bd-6m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 05:43:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zk7iy-000894-2z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 05:43:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:41:17 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20151008094117.GB5379@noname.redhat.com> References: <1443697481-13049-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20151008085444.GA29433@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151008085444.GA29433@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block: switch from g_slice allocator to malloc List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org Am 08.10.2015 um 10:54 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 01:04:39PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > Simplify memory allocation by sticking with a single API. GSlice > > is not that fast anyway (tcmalloc/jemalloc are better). > > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > > --- > > block/io.c | 4 ++-- > > block/mirror.c | 4 ++-- > > block/raw-posix.c | 8 ++++---- > > block/raw-win32.c | 4 ++-- > > hw/block/virtio-blk.c | 4 ++-- > > 5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > Thanks, applied to my block tree: > https://github.com/stefanha/qemu/commits/block Has someone benchmarked this before applying? Just claiming "wasn't fast anyway" doesn't generally seem sufficient for changes to the I/O path. Kevin