diff options
| author | Andrew Tridgell <tridge@samba.org> | 2004-09-28 14:37:28 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Gerald (Jerry) Carter <jerry@samba.org> | 2007-10-10 12:59:27 -0500 |
| commit | a93e366379eff56e886b0a7ee1f5db380a0db1b8 (patch) | |
| tree | aabfde50b8eccf94f3140838eef789e4ebf9f5f1 /talloc_guide.txt | |
| parent | ab5a0d31a37930300470c6e0891ed700f9f42f08 (diff) | |
| download | samba-a93e366379eff56e886b0a7ee1f5db380a0db1b8.tar.gz samba-a93e366379eff56e886b0a7ee1f5db380a0db1b8.tar.bz2 samba-a93e366379eff56e886b0a7ee1f5db380a0db1b8.zip | |
r2733: added a note on performance
(This used to be commit 171fe8209794bb1e61283126ccc165b43fbcfa62)
Diffstat (limited to 'talloc_guide.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | talloc_guide.txt | 12 |
1 files changed, 12 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talloc_guide.txt b/talloc_guide.txt index ae75f73d8e..24438ba722 100644 --- a/talloc_guide.txt +++ b/talloc_guide.txt @@ -39,6 +39,18 @@ source/torture/local/talloc.c to clarify how some particular situation is handled. +Performance +----------- + +All the additional features of talloc() over malloc() do come at a +price. We have a simple performance test in Samba4 that measures +talloc() versus malloc() performance, and it seems that talloc() is +about 10% slower than malloc() on my x86 Debian Linux box. For Samba, +the great reduction in code complexity that we get by using talloc +makes this worthwhile, especially as the total overhead of +talloc/malloc in Samba is already quite small. + + talloc API ---------- |