From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 05:17:09 +0000
Message-ID: <20150531051709.Horde.Soy5PS8ryaL2KRV9GzMoOUP@ssl.eumx.net>
From: Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
References: <20150530061308.Horde.aC_WDskRKnim3lHX6LLxoUF@ssl.eumx.net>
	<282c8157ab32274a7a57bdaf92cfdb09@proxima.alt.za>
	<20150530065929.Horde.QDsqrRMAxzJn6m4W92CoPMS@ssl.eumx.net>
	<201505310304.t4V34Zqd013068@freefriends.org>
	<20150531044047.Horde.O6Kyd_W2LFmUu83bds-TlRT@ssl.eumx.net>
	<533debb6d724cf5c9e69764865e4a8e5@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <533debb6d724cf5c9e69764865e4a8e5@brasstown.quanstro.net>
User-Agent: Horde Application Framework 5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [9fans] Ports tree for Plan 9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5734e962-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Quoting erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>:

> instead of guessing, you could see if the pool library's checks are
> really a bottleneck.
> it is straightforward to add header and tail magic and the callerpc
> stuff to ape
> malloc and run the comparsion again.
>
> otherwise, it seems far more likely that the problem is that quicklicks are
> faster than tree allocators.

I'm not a programmer.

>> I'm reasonably certain Moore's Law has fixed this issue for all
>> practical applications, however...
>
> i'm resonablly certain that plan 9 malloc's poor performance has
> cost me quite
> a bit of work.

I was talking about awk, not malloc in all applications.  Sorry if I was
insufficiently precise.  So far I have not been displeased with the
performance of native awk, but I'd be interested in seeing use cases
where it becomes a real-world problem.

khm