SuperMalloc: A Super Fast Multithreaded Malloc for 64-bit Machines • Hacker News Board

Re: SuperMalloc: A Super Fast Multithreaded Malloc for 64-bit Machines

#31

Post by thrownaway2424 » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 12:57 AM UTC

stass wrote: post #30

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any serious published works. Really the only way to choose an allocator is to try them all on your benchmark workload. Any other benchmarks are likely to be irrelevant. I think tcmalloc vs. jemalloc is basically a wash. One is written by google people and the other is written by facebook people. Facebook is much more forward about their open source project than is Google, so more people have heard of…

jemalloc is unaffiliated with FB. It was developed and integrated into FreeBSD and Firefox long before the author started working for Facebook.

What I meant about facebook's advocacy is that they have published lots of high profile blogs and whatnot about applications of jemalloc which have contributed greatly to its renown relative to tcmalloc, and I think it's fair to say that jemalloc versions 2, 3, and 4 have been largely underwritten by the Big Thumb.

And the other side of what I was trying to say is that for Google it's largely an issue of personality. tcmalloc is Google's malloc. JE works for Facebook. If JE worked at Google I'm sure Google would just use jemalloc.

Re: SuperMalloc: A Super Fast Multithreaded Malloc for 64-bit Machines

#32

Post by RossBencina » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 1:09 AM UTC

SuperMalloc was subject to critique and comparison with Bonwick's Slab Allocator in this excellent talk by Ryan Zezeski: "Memory by the Slab: The Tale of Bonwick's Slab Allocator" video, paper etc: http://paperswelove.org/2015/video/ryan-zezeski-memory-by-th...

Re: SuperMalloc: A Super Fast Multithreaded Malloc for 64-bit Machines

#33

Post by justincormack » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 8:29 AM UTC

DiThi wrote: post #17

jws wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think adding a GPLv3 dual to an MIT license changes much. You can derive a work from MIT licensed code and license your work with a more restrictive license. You would still need to reproduce the MIT license alongside your GPLv3 license which would be confusing. The author is giving you the option to omit the MIT text and have a pure GPLv3 if you wish to restrict access to your software in that way.

Don't all MIT licensed projects have this possibility de facto? I mean, I can take any other MIT licensed software, add some bits of mine GPL licensed, and release the whole thing as just GPL.

The whole thing is not GPL, someone can still just replace your changes with more MIT code and use the whole thing under BSD. You cannot change the license of someone else's code.