From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 22:01:03 -0700
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <797a72e55ed5f2429a060097c177ff4c@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <533debb6d724cf5c9e69764865e4a8e5@brasstown.quanstro.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Ports tree for Plan 9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 572afd9e-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat May 30 22:02:11 PDT 2015, quanstro@quanstro.net wrote:
> On Sat May 30 21:43:03 PDT 2015, khm@sciops.net wrote:
> > Quoting arnold@skeeve.com:
> >
> > > BWK has said that malloc affects the performance of his awk; I think
> > > it's in his README file.
> >
> > Yes, it was explained to me that plan 9 malloc does useful things instead
> > of just shoving things into the first available hole like APE malloc.
>
> 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.

also, ape %f/%g are much faster than the native version.

- erik