Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p><i>Some instances may also be passed across thread boundaries</i></p> <p>Only "some"? So perhaps you can afford to pay extra for these, if it makes the ones that don't get passed to other threads cheaper. There are various ways I can think of to get to one allocator per thread and avoid the need to lock when allocating or freeing in the thread to which the allocator belongs. I don't know which might be possible in your program:</p> <ul> <li><p>Copy things across the thread boundary, instead of passing them.</p></li> <li><p>Arrange that if they're passed to another thread for any reason, then they're passed back to the original thread to free. This doesn't necessarily have to happen very often, you could queue up a few in the receiving thread and pass them all back in a message later. This assumes of course that the thread which owns the allocator is going to stick around.</p></li> <li><p>Have two free lists per allocator, one synchronised (to which objects are added when they're freed from another thread), and one unsynchronised. Only if the unsynchronised list is empty, and you're allocating (and hence in the thread which owns the allocator), do you need to lock the synchronised free list and move all of its current contents to the unsynchronised list. If objects being passed to other threads is rare, this basically eliminates contention on the mutex and massively reduces the number of times it's taken at all.</p></li> <li><p>If all the above fails, having one allocator per thread might still allow you to get rid of the mutex and use a lock-free queue for the free list (multiple writers freeing, single reader allocating), which could improve performance a bit. Implementing a lock-free queue is platform-specific.</p></li> </ul> <p>Taking a step further back, does your app frequently hit a state in which you know that all cells allocated after a certain point (perhaps a little in the past), are no longer in use? If so, and assuming the destructor of your small objects doesn't do anything terribly urgent, then don't bother freeing cells at all - at the "certain point" create a new allocator and mark the old one as no longer in use for new allocations. When you "hit the state", free the whole allocator and its underlying buffer. If the "certain point" and the "state" are simultaneous, all the easier - just reset your allocator.</p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POEfficiently allocating many short-lived small objects
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. USSteve Jessop
    1. USSteve Jessop
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. CO"after a certain point (perhaps a little in the past), are no longer in use?" unfortunately no, they are used throughout the lifetime of the program. Following on the one-allocator per thread. What if I made a pool allocator that had it's free-list in some kind of TLS. Then id just need a occasional synchronised process to combat the possibility of objects migrating from one-thread to another causing one to free more than it allocates?
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USFire Lancer
    2. COYep, that sounds plausible. The slower the drift from one thread to another, the less often you have to synchronise and the lower the overhead.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USSteve Jessop
    3. COYou could also take a look at this: http://goog-perftools.sourceforge.net/doc/tcmalloc.html
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USSteve Jessop
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload