Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: "Robert Houdart" <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:36:03 +0200
Hello Pierre,
Thanks for your answers.
> However, it's not only the memory usage that is a concern: If the blocks
> are smaller they can be more tightly packed and that speeds up access
> speeds, something which our B&V tool does not really measure. (We write
> the beginning and end of blocks, but never again read them.)
Interestingly Eric's new LinkedList benchmark shows some of this behaviour.
BucketMM is about 10% slower than Recycler or FastMM3 because it requires a
32-byte allocation for the 16-byte TLinkedListItem record
By removing the "List" variable in the record (which isn't used at all, no
idea why it's there) to make it 12-byte record, BucketMM has the same speed
as the others.
Kind regards,
Robert
.
- References:
- Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Dennis
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Primoz Gabrijelcic
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Pierre le Riche
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Fikret Hasovic
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Dennis
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Dennis
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Aleksandr Sharahov
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Dennis
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Aleksandr Sharahov
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Pierre le Riche
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Aleksandr Sharahov
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Pierre le Riche
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Robert Houdart
- Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- From: Pierre le Riche
- Fastcode MM Rule
- Prev by Date: Re: String Functions
- Next by Date: Re: String Functions
- Previous by thread: Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- Next by thread: Re: Fastcode MM Rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|