musl - The musl libc tree (WIP / dev branches)

Age	Commit message (Collapse)	Author	Files	Lines
2012-04-24	ditch the priority inheritance locks; use malloc's version of lock	Rich Felker	1	-4/+4
	i did some testing trying to switch malloc to use the new internal lock with priority inheritance, and my malloc contention test got 20-100 times slower. if priority inheritance futexes are this slow, it's simply too high a price to pay for avoiding priority inversion. maybe we can consider them somewhere down the road once the kernel folks get their act together on this (and perferably don't link it to glibc's inefficient lock API)... as such, i've switch __lock to use malloc's implementation of lightweight locks, and updated all the users of the code to use an array with a waiter count for their locks. this should give optimal performance in the vast majority of cases, and it's simple. malloc is still using its own internal copy of the lock code because it seems to yield measurably better performance with -O3 when it's inlined (20% or more difference in the contention stress test).
2011-03-30	rename __simple_malloc.c to lite_malloc.c - yes this affects behavior!	Rich Felker	1	-0/+46
	why does this affect behavior? well, the linker seems to traverse archive files starting from its current position when resolving symbols. since calloc.c comes alphabetically (and thus in sequence in the archive file) between __simple_malloc.c and malloc.c, attempts to resolve the "malloc" symbol for use by calloc.c were pulling in the full malloc.c implementation rather than the __simple_malloc.c implementation. as of now, lite_malloc.c and malloc.c are adjacent in the archive and in the correct order, so malloc.c should never be used to resolve "malloc" unless it's already needed to resolve another symbol ("free" or "realloc").