Re: Allocate() Affecting execution speed.
David Guy writes:
> What am I not seeing? I'm not using the block for anything
> so why should that effect the speed of the code?
The code that you posted seems to fit the criteria for a
performance bug that was fixed for version 2.2
(Win, DOS and Linux). Basically, you are growing and
regrowing a sequence over and over. When I run your
code under 2.2 Beta I get a time that is 10x faster than
under 2.1 on the same machine.
I did notice that when the block is allocated
the time goes up rather surprisingly on 2.1, and to
a much smaller extent on 2.2 Beta. I also noticed
that when I allocated *two* 1024-byte blocks instead of
just one, the time went back to normal.
Since the time only varies by 10% on 2.2 Beta I don't
plan to investigate it further. I assume that by allocating
the extra block you have changed the order of blocks
on malloc's free list, thereby affecting the speed at which
malloc can find new blocks to use with the growing sequence.
On 2.1, as I recall, some weird and very inefficient stuff happens
in this situation, and I don't want to go back and analyze it.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
