From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38162) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkSRO-0007vj-C8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 03:50:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkSRN-0002UC-FX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 03:50:10 -0400 Sender: Paolo Bonzini References: <1443697481-13049-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20151008085444.GA29433@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <20151008094117.GB5379@noname.redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <561771A1.2060507@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 09:49:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151008094117.GB5379@noname.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: switch from g_slice allocator to malloc List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org On 08/10/2015 11:41, Kevin Wolf wrote: > 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. I did it about six months ago. Sorry for not digging up the results when posting: baseline: 193 kiops tcmalloc: 202 kiops tcmalloc + G_SLICE=always-malloc: 210 kiops Paolo