On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 09:19:25AM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Jakub Zawadzki
> <darkjames-ws@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I cheated a little and both tshark are based on r47905, but with patches:
> > ws_slab-tshark was build with patch: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=rMexZBsh
> > g_slices-tshark was build with patch: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=YdA50LKL
>
> Your g_slice patch uses g_slice_alloc0, which zeros the returned
> memory like g_malloc0 does. A fairer comparison would be with
> g_slice_alloc(), since the emem slab doesn't make any guarantees about
> zeroing memory.
Right, again g_slices, this time only 5:
18m59.489s
18m48.376s
18m43.400s
18m55.353s
19m0.579s
avg: 18m53.439s
+/- 10s
time difference to ws_slab: 1m58s (~10%)
> I'm honestly not sure why g_slice_alloc0 was used when
> debug_use_slices was set, since presumably in a debugging case we'd
> want to blow up if possible on uninitialized memory.
>
> > but I'd rather wait for some other results/conclusions before I repeat test with r48218 and r48217
> >
> > [cut]
> >
> > avg: 16m55.380s 19m29.426s
> > +/- 25s +/- 20s
> >
> > 1m17.023s
> > (~8% +/- 4%)
I'm not sure how I calculated this one (divided by two? :>), it should be 2m34.046s (~14%) :P
