4 ms·
Rich replaced the default musl malloc some time ago for exactly those reasons. Maybe they still used the old musl libc? The new one was drafted here: https://g
by rurban 1y ago
Rich replaced the default musl malloc some time ago for exactly those reasons. Maybe they still used the old musl libc?
The new one was drafted here: https://github.com/richfelker/mallocng-draft https://github.com/richfelker/mallocng-draft
- Aissen 1y agoThis is addressed in the article: https://nickb.dev/blog/default-musl-allocator-considered-harmful-to-performance/#musls-new-mallocng https://nickb.dev/blog/default-musl-allocator-considered-har...
- masklinn 1y agoThe new allocator does nothing to improve the performances in a threaded / contended application: https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2025/09/04/3 https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2025/09/04/3
- typpilol 1y agoThe response to the link here is really telling. Blames it all on app code like Wayland
- alberth 1y agoFrom the article: > “the new ng allocator in MUSL doesn’t make a dime of a difference”
- rurban 1y agoYes, sorry, missed that at the very end.