Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:11:49 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: calloc()/mmap() vs. fork() On 2015-09-18 19:04, Solar Designer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:49:22PM +0200, magnum wrote: >> On 2015-09-17 20:53, Solar Designer wrote: >>> I've just tried changing our mem_calloc() to make it actually use >>> calloc(), and using it for the hash tables and bitmaps in loader.c. >> >> This was news to be, although git blame shows I should have been aware >> of it. I regard it a bug and have now committed such a change. > > Now we'll need to look out for fork() performance regressions, if we > start using mem_calloc() for anything large prior to fork(). Yes. We'll just implement a mem_alloc_clear() that does it the old way, if/when needed. Preferably using the same (count, size) interface for easy switching. >> After reverting that problematic patch, I tried using calloc() in loader >> with no problems (nor any clear benefit) but haven't committed that. > > OK. You have tried it with --fork, right? Yes. If anything, it got slightly worse total time (a couple hundred ms). magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.