Re: copy.c allocation constant

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 09:30:54AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Tomas Vondra
> > <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> At the glibc level ... I'm not so sure. AFAIK glibc uses an allocator
> >> with similar ideas (freelists, ...) so hopefully it's fine too.
> >>
> >> And then there are the systems without glibc, or with other libc
> >> implementations. No idea about those.
> >
> > My guess is that a fairly common pattern for larger chunks will be to
> > round the size up to a multiple of 4kB, the usual memory page size.
> 
> See also this discussion:
> 
>
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D1bRyd%2B_W9eW-QmP1RGP03ti48zgd%3DK11Q6o4edQLgkcg%40mail.gmail.com#CAEepm=1bRyd+_W9eW-QmP1RGP03ti48zgd=K11Q6o4edQLgkcg@mail.gmail.com
> 
> TL;DR glibc doesn't actually round up like that below 128kB, but many
> others including FreeBSD, macOS etc round up to various page sizes or
> size classes including 8kB (!), 512 bytes.  I find this a bit
> frustrating because it means that the most popular libc implementation
> doesn't have the problem so this kind of thing probably isn't a high
> priority, but probably on most other Unices (and I have no clue for
> Windows) including my current favourite we waste a bunch of memory.

The BSD memory allocator used to allocate in powers of two, and keep the
header in a separate location.  They did this so they could combine two
free, identically-sized memory blocks into a single one that was double
the size.  I have no idea how it works now.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +