Jemalloc 5.4.0

(github.com)

144 points | by gkfasdfasdf 5 hours ago

6 comments

  • vocx2tx 3 hours ago
    For some context on why this release is notable: Jemalloc Postmortem [0]

    [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44264958

  • lordnacho 2 hours ago
    I always wondered, is it French? "Je m'alloc du memory"
    • jibcage 30 minutes ago
      Fun grammatical fact that I only learned after years of speaking French: when borrowing words from other languages, you usually (not always) take the gender of the equivalent word in French, so technically it would be “de la memory” :)
      • thrance 13 minutes ago
        That's the rule the old geezers at the Academy insist on. But then you have idiotic situations where everyone is using "le" for e.g. the COVID virus, while Academicians cry about the D meaning "Disease", which is feminine, making it "la COVID" in their book. As for all languages, the most important rule is that usage prevails. And that's something we in France still have a hard time integrating into public discourse.
    • sam_lowry_ 2 hours ago
      Rather a tradition to call a malloc by the initials of the implementer: Jason Evans malloc (jemalloc), Poul-Henning Kamp malloc (phkmalloc), Doug Lea (dlmalloc).

      P.S. I also wondered whether systemd had any cultural reference to Système D aka Système Débrouillard, but Pottering does not seem to engage in word play on other occasions, so probably not.

      • tefkah 1 hour ago
        damn i always thought it was a french thing, this is blowing my mind
        • eliaspro 59 minutes ago
          "Yes, it is written systemd, not system D or System D, or even SystemD. And it isn't system d either. Why? Because it's a system daemon, and under Unix/Linux those are in lower case, and get suffixed with a lower case d."

          Source: https://brand.systemd.io/

    • simonask 1 hour ago
      Thanks, now my brain will forever read it like that. I'm not even a little bit French.
    • u8080 52 minutes ago
      Memory je Srbia
  • albertgoeswoof 20 minutes ago
    I switched to jemalloc on a sidekiq queue and memory dropped from 8gib to under 1gib

    There’s a slow memory leak somewhere in my code but with jemalloc it no longer actually matters.

    Thanks to jemalloc team for this!

  • ksec 1 hour ago
    Ok. Why both the homepage and its Github repo doesn't make a single mention of Jason Evans? I know he stepped down but surely it is at least worst mentioning it?

    Is Meta still using it and developing it? If not who are the driving force behind it now? I just checked there wasn't a release since 2022 and then we have this now. Something changed?

    Just wish we have a little bit of context. But it is also great it is continue being maintained. It makes a huge difference for Ruby on Rails Apps.

  • skavi 1 hour ago
    does anyone familiar with the art have thoughts on why only tcmalloc switched from thread caches to cpu caches? would it make linux behavior diverge too much from other platforms?
    • rwmj 53 minutes ago
      (Not an expert but ...) unless you pin threads to cores, which is not the default and somewhat awkward in Linux for user applications, having a per-thread cache doesn't really make sense as your thread could be moved to another core and then your cache will no longer be local to the physical cache.
    • enduku 56 minutes ago
      I think tcmalloc gains on thread churn and oversubscription by going the cpu-cache route on Linux. on other platforms, I am not so sure but that can be offset by say a treiber-stack like setup for cross-thread frees/teardowns. So lesser code for Linux for similar fastpath design I guess.
  • ZenoArrow 4 hours ago
    Why is this on the HN front page? Is there something particularly noteworthy about this release?
    • imhoguy 2 hours ago
      I upvoted it because I benefit from jemalloc in my stack (RoR) and I am tired of AI taking over HN front page. Let the hacker spirit be back!
      • adityapatadia 1 hour ago
        Upvoted for the same reason. We would not be able to run our workloads without Jemalloc. Kudos to this awesome piece of software.
      • smartmic 1 hour ago
        You are not alone - my first thought was 'oh, HN is trying to bring back the disappointed hackers'. All this AI hype over every little model update fart is so exhausting and boring …
    • aktenlage 3 hours ago
      They resumed development on jemalloc only recently, after years of no releases.
      • charcircuit 1 hour ago
        Development was never stopped for jemalloc. This is a common misconception. There just were not releases being tagged and packaged against the ongoing development.
    • defrost 3 hours ago
      The noted resumption and likely a small amount of halo effect from the Comparison of Malloc() Algorithms thread two / three days ago.

      - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49715318

    • ck45 3 hours ago
      I just checked whether it's the first release after Jason Evans stepped down as maintainer, but it isn't. That was the previous release, 5.3.1
    • baq 2 hours ago
      jemalloc is something you should be aware of if you do software for a living
      • stackghost 2 hours ago
        In the Before Times, the vast majority of software was written in garbage collected language where a working knowledge of the relative merits of C memory allocators is not useful or particularly relevant.

        Why would the scads of people writing JavaScript, Java, python, go, rails, etc need to be aware of jemalloc?

        • nh2 1 hour ago
          Memory allocation behaviour has visible impact also for users of managed languages, and the behaviour of software for end users.

          In our Python program, a bit of numpy processing of large pictures led to 100 GB not being returned to the OS by glibc's default allocator and the machine running out of memory shortly after. With jemalloc's reliable memory return settings, those problems disappear.

        • xxs 1 hour ago
          >...the vast majority of software was written in garbage collected language

          and even then recently it costed (us) quite a few months to blame JVM and later the default glibc memory allocator for running out native (java heap memory) - had to exclude all possible native libs, direct buffers, sockets, thread stacks and so on. Changing the malloc to jemalloc solved the issue, even though initially it was done for its debugging capabilities.

          It's just a great memory allocator.

          • fc417fc802 29 minutes ago
            I'm never sure if I should be upset or happy when I've been debugging a problem for long enough that I finally decide to switch something out in order to improve visibility and that immediately solves the problem for entirely unexpected reasons. Particularly all the times when I couldn't readily discern why.
        • iam-da-author 1 hour ago
          TL;DR: Because the runtime of most GC:d languages uses malloc for its internal data structures.

          I work for the runtime team of JPG @ Oracle. We use malloc in Hotspot, quite a lot actually! Providing your JVM with a good malloc can improve the performance of the runtime, both in terms of CPU and memory, by quite a bit.

          I don't think you need the details, but it's good to be aware that some mallocs are better than others, and there are multiple of them. Being aware of jemalloc is a good way of being aware of the facts I just mentioned :-).

      • rfgplk 2 hours ago
        Why? Writing a memory allocator is quite simple, and I'd argue that _everyone_ should write one from scratch for any kind of high performance application. It's also trivial to outperform general purpose allocators that have to satisfy countless constraints. I've written numerous special purpose mallocs that are a) both provably (formally) safer than the standard armada and b) significantly faster (>10x throughput).
        • groomlake 2 hours ago
          Your experience writing memory allocators is irrelevant. The point is that jemalloc is widely used and that’s why it makes sense to be aware of it.
        • stackghost 2 hours ago
          Writing an allocator is simple, you’re correct, but writing an allocator that doesn’t suck is not simple.
        • HackerThemAll 2 hours ago
          I'd happily see performance, latency and stability of your allocators in massively multithreaded, long-living programs with workloads where hundreds or thousands of parallel threads continuously create and destroy short-lived small and medium objects.

          Writing allocators for domain-specific access patterns is easy. Writing a general-purpose high performing, stable allocator with bounded P99 latency is hard.

          Give your friend, Dunning–Kruger, some better pills to keep him from speaking through you.

          • cv5005 2 minutes ago
            >where hundreds or thousands of parallel threads continuously create and destroy short-lived small and medium objects.

            Should one even want a global, general purpose heap allocator for that? Seems like a crazy idea to even consider.

          • Pannoniae 2 hours ago
            You're correct, but his point is that you don't need to solve the generic problem. Solving the generic problem is very hard. Grug doesn't like solving hard problem. What does grug do? Solve five easy problems. Make an arena for the short-lived objects, reuse the objects, use generic multithreaded malloc for the rest. Grug happy.
          • matheusmoreira 1 hour ago
            Not everything needs to be general purpose. Allocation can be as easy as bumping a pointer, and it's hard to beat that.
    • gjvc 1 hour ago
      because people like you are too busy whining about it to put up something more interesting
    • kreco 53 minutes ago
      > Why is this on the HN front page?

      This question was not necessary. You know the answer, because people upvoted this.