Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:26:44 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] use the new lock algorithm for malloc On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:58:51PM +0100, Jens Gustedt wrote: > Hello Rich, > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:42:34 -0500 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:17:12PM +0100, Jens Gustedt wrote: > > > Malloc used a specialized lock implementation in many places. Now > > > that we have a generic lock that has the desired properties, we > > > should just use this, instead of this multitude of very similar > > > lock mechanisms. --- > > > src/malloc/malloc.c | 38 +++++++++++++------------------------- > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/src/malloc/malloc.c b/src/malloc/malloc.c > > > index 9e05e1d6..6c667a5a 100644 > > > --- a/src/malloc/malloc.c > > > +++ b/src/malloc/malloc.c > > > @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ > > > #define inline inline __attribute__((always_inline)) > > > #endif > > > > > > +#include "__lock.h" > > > + > > > > Ah, I see -- maybe you deemed malloc to be the only place where > > inlining for the sake of speed made sense? That's probably true. > > Yes, and also I was trying to be conservative. Previously, the lock > functions for malloc resided in the same TU, so they were probably > inlined most of the time. Yes, and that was done because (at least at the time) it made a significant empirical difference. So I suspect it makes sense to do the same still. I've queued your patches 1-3 for inclusion in my next push unless I see any major problem. I might try to get the rest included too but being that I'm behind on this release cycle we'll see.. Thanks for all your work on this and patience. :) Rich
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.