Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Al Viro
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 2:12 pm

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:09:04PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:


Really?  Used _where_?


I hate to think of what you'd propose under duress...


Excellent advice.  One question: why the bleeding hell would we use BKL
in allocator, frequently or not, when we do not share the crucial resource
needed to come up with such ideas?  Or are you proposing to share your
crack pipe as well?


I wonder...  Are you seriously implying that nobody here had ever been able
to come up with anything better than _that_ (e.g. with an amazingly advanced
idea of googling for papers on allocators for all of two minutes)?  And that
you are so sure of it that you couldn't be arsed to check what the hell is
allocator really doing, on the off-chance that somebody might have been able
to match your brilliant intellectual feat?

And then we are told that linux-kernel regulars are mean and insulting...

FWIW, the quality of proposed "solution" is not an issue; hell, even "what
if that code is really so dumb that <....> would be an improvement" is not
a problem - the estimate is too low, but far be it from me to suggest that
one should apriori assume that unreviewed code is good.  What _really_
makes the whole thing incredibly insulting is that you had not bothered
to even look at the damn thing and just went on with "of course none of
you could have ever come up with anything better - I don't even need to
look at it to tell you that".
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, J.C. Pizarro, (Wed Mar 12, 1:09 pm)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, Al Viro, (Wed Mar 12, 2:12 pm)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, Rik van Riel, (Wed Mar 12, 2:22 pm)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, David Newall, (Wed Mar 12, 10:57 pm)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, Mike Galbraith, (Wed Mar 12, 11:12 pm)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, David Newall, (Wed Mar 12, 11:22 pm)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, Christoph Hellwig, (Thu Mar 13, 12:38 am)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, Pekka Enberg, (Thu Mar 13, 2:10 am)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, David Newall, (Thu Mar 13, 3:50 am)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, David Newall, (Thu Mar 13, 4:02 am)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, David Newall, (Thu Mar 13, 4:04 am)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, J.C. Pizarro, (Thu Mar 13, 5:23 am)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, Pekka Enberg, (Thu Mar 13, 5:48 am)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, J.C. Pizarro, (Thu Mar 13, 6:55 am)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, David Newall, (Thu Mar 13, 12:40 pm)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, Pekka Enberg, (Thu Mar 13, 1:05 pm)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, Willy Tarreau, (Thu Mar 13, 11:05 pm)
Re: linux+glibc memory allocator, poor performance, Stephen Clark, (Fri Mar 14, 5:11 am)