From: ko1@...
Date: 2014-09-29T07:16:10+00:00
Subject: [ruby-core:65311] [ruby-trunk - Feature #10238] todo: remove dependency on malloc_usable_size

Issue #10238 has been updated by Koichi Sasada.


Eric Wong wrote:
> malloc_usable_size shows up at or near the top of many profiles for me.

We can check the performance impact by enabling HAVE_MALLOC_USABLE_SIZE macro.

Try this program:

```ruby
require 'benchmark'
Benchmark.bm{|x|
  10.times{
    x.report{
      10_000_000.times{ '*' * 260 }
    }
  }
}

```

Results:

```
enable HAVE_MALLOC_USABLE_SIZE:
       user     system      total        real
   3.140000   0.010000   3.150000 (  3.144509)
   3.130000   0.000000   3.130000 (  3.132572)
   3.130000   0.000000   3.130000 (  3.138391)
   3.170000   0.000000   3.170000 (  3.169465)
   3.150000   0.000000   3.150000 (  3.160397)
   3.140000   0.000000   3.140000 (  3.134969)
   3.150000   0.000000   3.150000 (  3.150813)
   3.130000   0.000000   3.130000 (  3.134149)
   3.190000   0.000000   3.190000 (  3.196077)
   3.130000   0.000000   3.130000 (  3.132020)

disable HAVE_MALLOC_USABLE_SIZE:
       user     system      total        real
   2.940000   0.010000   2.950000 (  2.965000)
   2.950000   0.000000   2.950000 (  2.953580)
   2.940000   0.000000   2.940000 (  2.952080)
   2.970000   0.000000   2.970000 (  2.964060)
   2.970000   0.000000   2.970000 (  2.970614)
   3.020000   0.000000   3.020000 (  3.023180)
   3.000000   0.000000   3.000000 (  3.006568)
   3.000000   0.000000   3.000000 (  2.993302)
   2.940000   0.000000   2.940000 (  2.951028)
   2.980000   0.000000   2.980000 (  2.987452)
```

(Ubuntu 14.1 on VirtualBox on Windows7)

It seems about 3.1 sec ->2.9 sec (7% speedup) by disabling this feature for an intentional case.

> We should be able to use ruby_sized_xfree in more places; especially
> if rb_data_type_t->dsize is defined.
> 
> One possible improvement is to allow the rb_data_type_t->dsize pointer
> to be a FIXNUM, removing the need for some memsize functions.

T_DATA is not so many, so that I don't think the overhead of calling function is matter.

BTW, as nobu said, the function pointers can be located odd address. I encounterd such case on mswin32 build.

> Furthermore, over-accounting malloc-ed bytes (presumably the reason
> malloc_usable_size was introduced). should be less harmful nowadays with
> incremental marking.

At first, the purpose of using malloc_usable_size() is to measure malloc'ed block correctly.
As you know, malloc() can return bigger memory block than we specified.
We need to compare the advantage (preciseness) and the disadvantage (performance down).

And I also agree that performance is more important :)

Current malloc_increase (and oldmalloc_increase) is not considered carefully.
(Current implementation is ad-hoc)
We need to re-consider about it (include avoiding atomic operations).



----------------------------------------
Feature #10238: todo: remove dependency on malloc_usable_size
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10238#change-49131

* Author: Eric Wong
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Category: core
* Target version: Next Major
----------------------------------------
malloc_usable_size shows up at or near the top of many profiles for me.

We should be able to use ruby_sized_xfree in more places; especially
if rb_data_type_t->dsize is defined.

One possible improvement is to allow the rb_data_type_t->dsize pointer
to be a FIXNUM, removing the need for some memsize functions.

Furthermore, over-accounting malloc-ed bytes (presumably the reason
malloc_usable_size was introduced). should be less harmful nowadays with
incremental marking.




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/