[U-Boot] [RFC][PATCH] Update malloc to dlmalloc version 2.8.4

[Kumar Gala]

On Jul 7, 2009, at 2:16 PM, T Ziomek wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 02:34:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Tuesday 07 July 2009 12:30:18 Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> Here are some size #'s
>>>
>>> [galak at blarg u-boot-85xx]$ size u-boot
>>>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
>>>  392040	  50536	  41957	 484533	  764b5	u-boot
>>>  397660	  49500	  42397	 489557	  77855	u-boot		(new dlmalloc)
>>>
>>> [galak at blarg u-boot-85xx]$ size common/dlmalloc.o
>>>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
>>>    4768	   1056	     56	   5880	   16f8	common/dlmalloc.o
>>>   10390	     16	    492	  10898	   2a92	common/dlmalloc.o	(new
>>> dlmalloc)
>>
>> to say it has increased is an understatement.  i cant imagine the  
>> upstream
>> code increasing that much.  perhaps we had trimmed/customized the
>> implementation so as to shrink it ?
>>
>>> old dlmalloc:
>>> [galak at blarg u-boot-85xx]$ nm --size-sort common/dlmalloc.o
>>
>> use the bloatcheck script to do a human readable compare between  
>> the two
>> objects.  you can find it in the linux kernel.
>
> And/or, 'pahole' (Poke-a-hole) or some of the other "7 Dwarves" tools
> might help shed light on the differences.
>
> LWN article <http://lwn.net/Articles/335942/> (how I heard about them)
> GIT <http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/acme/pahole.git>
> OLS '07 paper <http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/7dwarves.pdf> or
>  <http://ols.fedoraproject.org/OLS/Reprints-2007/melo-Reprint.pdf>

Those would help if the data structs had gotten bigger.  In this case  
the code itself is just larger.

- k