From 558c8d085e5416f4c7fedf94a55c73b91a04d0cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daan Leijen Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 10:23:57 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] update benchmark references --- doc/mimalloc-doc.h | 2 +- readme.md | 12 ++++++------ 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/mimalloc-doc.h b/doc/mimalloc-doc.h index 7c238d29..59113402 100644 --- a/doc/mimalloc-doc.h +++ b/doc/mimalloc-doc.h @@ -1209,7 +1209,7 @@ synthetic benchmarks that see how the allocator behaves under more extreme circumstances. In our benchmarks, _mimalloc_ always outperforms all other leading -allocators (_jemalloc_, _tcmalloc_, _Hoard_, etc) (Apr 2019), +allocators (_jemalloc_, _tcmalloc_, _Hoard_, etc) (Jan 2021), and usually uses less memory (up to 25% more in the worst case). A nice property is that it does *consistently* well over the wide range of benchmarks. diff --git a/readme.md b/readme.md index 18d50636..e9308849 100644 --- a/readme.md +++ b/readme.md @@ -458,8 +458,8 @@ the memory compacting [_Mesh_](https://github.com/plasma-umass/Mesh) (git:51222e Bobby Powers _et al_ \[8], and finally the default system allocator (glibc, 2.27) (based on _PtMalloc2_). - - + + Any benchmarks ending in `N` run on all processors in parallel. Results are averaged over 10 runs and reported relative @@ -550,8 +550,8 @@ having a 48 processor AMD Epyc 7000 at 2.5GHz with 384GiB of memory. The results are similar to the Intel results but it is interesting to see the differences in the _larsonN_, _mstressN_, and _xmalloc-testN_ benchmarks. - - + + ## Peak Working Set @@ -559,8 +559,8 @@ see the differences in the _larsonN_, _mstressN_, and _xmalloc-testN_ benchmarks The following figure shows the peak working set (rss) of the allocators on the benchmarks (on the c5.18xlarge instance). - - + + Note that the _xmalloc-testN_ memory usage should be disregarded as it allocates more the faster the program runs. Similarly, memory usage of