Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #33032
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently |
| Date | 2015-11-08 17:05 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <n1ogvq$70k$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <mcmurtrie-7C2FC0.08251706112015@news.sonic.net> <n1me0f$6d5$1@speranza.aioe.org> <WKWdnbymBJyAnKLLnZ2dnUU78dmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <da9gi0F6a6nU1@mid.individual.net> <n1ods3$bh2$1@dont-email.me> |
On 11/8/2015 4:12 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > In this case the offending functions were the malloc and B-tree modules > in the C standard library for DEC's Alpha servers running TrueUNIX. > > The root problem was that the OS was Mach-based and the implementation > seemed to use a single-threaded process to implement each low level clib > function: at least, we found this problem in several parts of the OS. > Maybe this is the main reason that Mach message-passing micro-kernel > architectures have largely disappeared, but I digress... > > The effect was that, because the btree routine used three chunks of > memory for each node (IIRC one for key, one for data, one for the three > pointers), so that lookups (which added unknown nodes to the tree) bottle- > necked on the malloc() process with three calls per node added. We needed > something like 7,000 lookups/sec but couldn't break 800. > > So I rewrote the btree functions to use only one struct per node, which > gave an immediate speedup to better than 1500 lookups/sec. > > More checks showed that now the sbrk() function that malloc() called each > time it needed to extend process heap memory had the same problem. So, I > changed my code to use malloc() to grab MB-sized chunks of heap space and > and wrote an application level function that allocated btree nodes in my > chunk of heap and asked for more when it was needed. This gave me 25,000 > looks/sec: job done! Isn't that what __mingrow was supposed to do in a more transparent way? Arne
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Things have 'moved on' apparently Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 12:32 +0000
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2015-11-06 08:25 -0800
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 12:02 -0800
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-06 19:46 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-11-07 17:21 +0000
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 12:50 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 05:37 -0800
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 09:00 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-11-09 14:56 +0000
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-11-09 19:25 +0000
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-11-07 21:57 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-11-07 22:02 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently leif.roar@dimnakorr.com - 2015-11-08 02:00 -0600
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-11-08 08:44 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently leif.roar@dimnakorr.com - 2015-11-08 13:08 -0600
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2015-11-08 18:54 +0100
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-11-08 21:12 +0000
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-11-08 17:05 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-11-08 23:24 +0000
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-11-08 19:40 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-08 21:32 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-11-09 15:15 +0000
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2015-11-08 12:10 -0800
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-08 16:00 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-11-08 16:51 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2015-11-08 00:55 +0100
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-11-07 21:28 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-11-07 21:36 -0500
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently leif.roar@dimnakorr.com - 2015-11-08 02:12 -0600
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently askfor <askfor@nowhere.net> - 2015-11-09 18:02 +0100
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2015-11-10 22:32 -0800
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 07:52 +0000
Re: Things have 'moved on' apparently ross.finlayson@gmail.com - 2015-11-19 23:28 -0800
csiph-web