Message129889
| Author |
neologix |
| Recipients |
Aaron.Sherman, giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, neologix, pitrou, vstinner |
| Date |
2011年03月02日.13:01:27 |
| SpamBayes Score |
5.57253e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<AANLkTi=qSziZzpJSjvtoJMx+S0-y1xOUJbCOvWN1H6Lk@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1299067862.29.0.175389632467.issue11314@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> pitrou> I think your analysis is wrong. These mmap() calls are for
> pitrou> anonymous memory, most likely they are emitted by the libc's
> pitrou> malloc() to get some memory from the kernel. In other words
> pitrou> they will be blazingly fast.
>
> Are you sure? :-)
Well, it is fast. It's true that mmap is slower than brk, since the
kernel zero-fills the pages, but the overhead probably doesn't come
from this, but more likely from pymalloc or malloc, and also from the
call to _PyBytes_resize in posix_read when the number of bytes read is
smaller than what has been requested. |
|