[Bf-committers] [Bf-blender-cvs] [26206] Compiling issue

Campbell Barton ideasman42 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 23 19:49:37 CET 2010

did you try one of the malloc replacements? - should be able to do it
without rebuilding blender even.
I tried 3 popular malloc replacements (benchmarked with the game engine)
jemalloc, nedmalloc and hoard IIRC None made much of a difference for
me though perhaps the  BGE isnt a good test case, was also trying on
linux with an optimized build.

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 5:21 PM, joe <joeedh at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is also something I've had to deal with in the bmesh branch, and
> the code I wrote there should never see the light of day in trunk
> (which motivates me to tackle this now :) ).  It's really quite
> horrible what I wrote to deal with vgroups performance problems.
> Joe
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, joe <joeedh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The purpose was simple experimentation, since we need to do
>> *something* and at the time I didn't think people would go for using
>> jcmalloc.  Vgroups really are a bad source of performance loss, mostly
>> in debug builds (which we need to be usable but aren't in some cases).
>>  I was hoping to elicit ideas from other people, and go from there.
>> Anyway, it was silly of me to ignore the possibility of using
>> jcmalloc, which we can probably drop in as a replacement for malloc
>> within guardedalloc itself (and even have compile time options to have
>> guardedalloc go straight through to jcmalloc).
>> Joe
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Brecht Van Lommel <brecht at blender.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> Right, I replied to the wrong mail, I was talking about the
>>> guardedalloc changes. I understand this is experimental, but I don't
>>> think some more experimentation will be prove this to be the right
>>> thing to do. It may well lead to a speedup in simple test cases, but a
>>> simple use of pooling can lead to much wasted memory and make problems
>>> worse when running Blender for a while. So it is not clear to me what
>>> the purpose is here, if this is the start of writing an advanced
>>> memory allocator then I don't think we should try to do that
>>> ourselves, and if not then I don't think this can be good enough to
>>> put in a release.
>>> Brecht.
>>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM, joe <joeedh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> What are you talking about specifically?  It helps with ghash, because
>>>> each bucket node was being allocated individually, causing a
>>>> significant speed problem.  This particular solution was very
>>>> appropriate; it's why we have the mempool library in the first place.
>>>> Now, the experimental code I committed (#ifdef'd out) to guardedalloc
>>>> is different (and was a
>>>> different commit even).  This particular commit has nothing to do with
>>>> that.  On that topic, OSX has (or had, anyway) a reputation for having
>>>> a system allocator almost as slow as windows; linux is the only OS as
>>>> far as I know (other then the BSDs I guess) that doesn't suffer from
>>>> this.  So it's hardly simply a windows issue.
>>>> The overhead we get from guardedalloc isn't all that bad, really.  I
>>>> wasn't talking about that in the slightest.  What I was talking about
>>>> was the significant performance loss we get from overusing the system
>>>> allocator, which has caused significant problems for me and others.  I
>>>> committed the code #ifdef'd out, so people who need it can play around
>>>> with it but not cause problems for others.  There's a reason it's
>>>> *experimental*.
>>>> Joe
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

- Campbell

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list