Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:42:20 +0000 From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> To: unga888@yahoo.com, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 excessive memory allocations [SOLVED] Message-ID: <20130328064216.GA30925@anubis.morrow.me.uk> In-Reply-To: <1364449156.30979.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1364322902.78474.YahooMailNeo@web161904.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1364393170.36972.49.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <1364409226.37379.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1364410923.36972.67.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoth Unga <unga888@yahoo.com>: > > > I think you may be reading too much into the malloc manpage. When it > > mentions the use of per-thread small-object caches to avoid locking it's > > talking about performance, not thread safety. Allocations of all sizes > > are thread-safe, the library just assumes that huge allocations are rare > > enough that it doesn't use extra per-thread resources to avoid locking > > for them, it just uses locking for huge blocks. > > Good to note all allocations are thread safe in FreeBSD. Is it by some > standard that malloc should be thread safe regardless the OS (BSDs, > Linux, Windows, Android, etc)? POSIX (well, SUSv4 at least) says that malloc and free must be threadsafe. Note that Windows is not a POSIX system, though I belive malloc is also always threadsafe on Windows. Ben
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130328064216.GA30925>