Like I was saying in another post, cache_alloc is better than 2/3 cases
but fails the last one.

I'll review all that when I have time and if I find something valuable
then I'll come back here.


Thanks for your feedback,

-- 
*Phil Bouchard*
Founder & CTO
C.: (819) 328-4743
Fornux Logo <http://www.fornux.com>
On 7/27/21 4:18 PM, DBJ wrote:
> Phill, please add your allocator here https://godbolt.org/z/drEnYera1 
> <https://godbolt.org/z/drEnYera1> and report back, if that is OK to 
> ask of you.
>
> Please note the benchmarking infrastructure in use and allocator 
> interface so that it can be used as a template argument to 
> std::vector. I might dare to call that code: "realistic benchmarking".
>
> Kind regards...
>
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 at 20:44, Phil Bouchard <boost_at_[hidden] 
> <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
>     Yeah I updated it again (disabled page_t initialization) so in
>     general it's more like 3x faster. Which is good if you require
>     low-latency (finance, gaming industry, ...). That's why we all use
>     C++ after all, no?
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     *Phil Bouchard*
>     Founder & CTO
>     C.: (819) 328-4743
>
>     Fornux Logo <http://www.fornux.com>
>
>
>     On 7/24/21 12:18 PM, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>
>>     Interestingly, if I increase the LOOP_SIZE the overall time taken
>>     is less thus is faster. Also please keep DATASET_SIZE to 1
>>     because I didn't test it with other sizes.
>>
>>     I'll follow later this weekend, meanwhile I've put the code here:
>>
>>     https://github.com/philippeb8/Flash-Alloc
>>     <https://github.com/philippeb8/Flash-Alloc>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     *Phil Bouchard*
>>     Founder & CTO
>>     C.: (819) 328-4743
>>
>>     Fornux Logo <http://www.fornux.com>
>>
>>
>>     On 7/24/21 6:19 AM, DBJ wrote:
>>>     https://godbolt.org/z/T4qc5o8Mb <https://godbolt.org/z/T4qc5o8Mb>
>>>
>>>     that turns out to be many times slower vs. std::allocator<> ...
>>>
>>>     I must be doing something wrong?
>>>
>>>     On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 at 09:40, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals
>>>     <std-proposals_at_[hidden]
>>>     <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         And here's a more generic one that is 10x faster for
>>>         straight allocations.
>>>
>>>         Anyway my point being that apparently the rebind oddity has
>>>         been removed from the C++20 standards but not from my system
>>>         headers... So perhaps adding a similar ultra fast allocator
>>>         such as this one into the stdlib would be constructive.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Regards,
>>>
>>>         -- 
>>>
>>>         *Phil Bouchard*
>>>         Founder & CTO
>>>         C.: (819) 328-4743
>>>
>>>         Fornux Logo <http://www.fornux.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 7/23/21 10:23 PM, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Greetings,
>>>>
>>>>         Given the default memory allocator is known to be slow, it
>>>>         came to my attention that if we collect more information at
>>>>         compile-time regarding not only the type being allocated
>>>>         but the container type and the usage frequency then we can
>>>>         have much higher performance.
>>>>
>>>>         In the attached example, if we use a queue then we can
>>>>         speed up the overall allocation time by 7x!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         Regards,
>>>>
>>>>         -- 
>>>>
>>>>         *Phil Bouchard*
>>>>         Founder & CTO
>>>>         C.: (819) 328-4743
>>>>
>>>>         Fornux Logo <http://www.fornux.com>
>>>>
>>>         -- 
>>>         Std-Proposals mailing list
>>>         Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>>>         <mailto:Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]>
>>>         https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>>         <https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals>
>>>
>>