[LLVMdev] malloc() vs. MallocInst

[Torvald Riegel]

I'm sorry for the spam, my mail program is too clever for me.

On Tuesday 30 October 2007, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Hi Vikram,
>
> I want to use poolalloc as a means for partitioning memory in Software
> Transactional Memory. We will have a paper about tuning parameters in
> word-based STMs in PPoPP 08, but there we use one configuration for the
> complete TM, which obviously has limitations in heterogenous workloads.
>
> Partitioning with poolalloc should give me (1) hopefully meaningful
> partitions (ie, datastructures) with locality without requiring user
> annotations, (2) spatial locality that can make runtime partition lookup
> easier (eg, table entries per page), and (3) type-information for pools.
> I already mentioned partitioning briefly in one of our previous
> conversations (and you pointed out the usefulness of poolalloc for
> partitioning :), but I was too busy during the summer to really work on
> this. I was initially aiming for a not far away deadline, but I'm behind
> schedule so I'll have to see how fast I can be.
>
> The only issues that poolalloc has for me right now is that (a) passing
> things through pthread_create() doesn't work out of the box and (b) node
> collapsing when I enable llvm-ld optimizations. I guess I can do sth.
> about (a) (I've been already talking about this with Andrew), and (b) is
> not critical either.
>
> I've seen that you too have a PPoPP paper, congratulations. Is it related
> (or could I get a (draft) copy)?
> Which kinds of work do you have to prioritize, if I may ask? Perhaps I
> can then give you better input. Eg, (a) could be useful for poolalloc
> (although my solutions could be too TM specific).
> If there should be an overlap in research interests and we could
> collaborate, that would be great as well.
>
> Thanks for the support,
>
> Torvald
>
> On Monday 29 October 2007, Vikram S. Adve wrote:
> > Torvald,
> >
> > For what are you interested in poolalloc?  I'm asking because we are
> > trying to decide how to prioritize work on it.  Thanks,
> >
> > --Vikram
> > http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve
> > http://llvm.org
> >
> > On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I recently looked quite some time for why poolalloc wouldn't
> > > transform calls
> > > to malloc() in my program, until I noticed that it handles calls to
> > > malloc()
> > > (eg, stdlib pass) -- but only transforms MallocInst's.
> > >
> > > Is there a general policy on how passes should behave? Should they
> > > handle both
> > > representations, is doing -raiseallocs the preferred way, or do we
> > > explicitely not want any single policy (ie, are there any hidden
> > > problems)?
> > > Perhaps this could also get a FAQ entry or sth. like that.
> > >
> > > Torvald
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev