<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://bugs.webkit.org/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.4.1"
          urlbase="https://bugs.webkit.org/"
          
          maintainer="admin@webkit.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>45735</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2010-09-14 01:32:13 -0700</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>Use fastMalloc in libxml</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2010-09-15 01:51:35 -0700</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>WebKit</product>
          <component>XML</component>
          <version>528+ (Nightly build)</version>
          <rep_platform>All</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>All</op_sys>
          <bug_status>UNCONFIRMED</bug_status>
          <resolution></resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard></status_whiteboard>
          <keywords></keywords>
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>Normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          <blocked>43085</blocked>
          <everconfirmed>0</everconfirmed>
          <reporter name="Patrick R. Gansterer">paroga</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="Nobody">webkit-unassigned</assigned_to>
          <cc>zoltan</cc>
          

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>278770</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
      <attachid>67526</attachid>
    <who name="Patrick R. Gansterer">paroga</who>
    <bug_when>2010-09-14 01:32:13 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>Created attachment 67526
possible Patch

libxml provides a function called xmlMemSetup() (http://xmlsoft.org/html/libxml-xmlmemory.html#xmlMemSetup), where we can set the memory access functions.

The strange thing on my machine was, that it was slower with WTF:fastMalloc. Any ideas?
I tried a ~10MB SVG and stopped the time from first doWrite until doEnd with a GTK release build on linux.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>279042</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
    <who name="Mark Rowe (bdash)">mrowe</who>
    <bug_when>2010-09-14 11:23:21 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>Why is the patch flagged for review when you claim it makes things slower?</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>279049</commentid>
    <comment_count>2</comment_count>
    <who name="Patrick R. Gansterer">paroga</who>
    <bug_when>2010-09-14 11:38:46 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #1)
&gt; Why is the patch flagged for review when you claim it makes things slower?
IMHO it should get faster. Maybe I miss something? That&apos;s the reason. Feel free to remove the r?.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>279074</commentid>
    <comment_count>3</comment_count>
      <attachid>67526</attachid>
    <who name="Mark Rowe (bdash)">mrowe</who>
    <bug_when>2010-09-14 12:17:41 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>Comment on attachment 67526
possible Patch

Marking as r- as the author mentioned this was a performance regression.  Our policy towards performance is to take changes that measure as performance wins, not changes that we hope may be faster.  I’d suggest that this bug be closed unless there’s some compelling reason to think that we can make this in to a performance win.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>279076</commentid>
    <comment_count>4</comment_count>
    <who name="Patrick R. Gansterer">paroga</who>
    <bug_when>2010-09-14 12:20:57 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #3)
&gt; (From update of attachment 67526 [details])
&gt; Marking as r- as the author mentioned this was a performance regression.  Our policy towards performance is to take changes that measure as performance wins, not changes that we hope may be faster.  I’d suggest that this bug be closed unless there’s some compelling reason to think that we can make this in to a performance win.
Do you have any idea why this is (on my machine!!) slower? Shouldn&apos;t it be faster with fastMalloc?
Maybe someone can try on a other platform before we close the bug?</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>279454</commentid>
    <comment_count>5</comment_count>
    <who name="Zoltan Horvath">zoltan</who>
    <bug_when>2010-09-15 01:17:31 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>Using of TCmalloc doesn&apos;t mean automatic performance improvement, especially not for external libraries.
I agree with Mark, we should take this change.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>279469</commentid>
    <comment_count>6</comment_count>
    <who name="Zoltan Horvath">zoltan</who>
    <bug_when>2010-09-15 01:51:35 -0700</bug_when>
    <thetext>
&gt; I agree with Mark, we should take this change.

We should not take this change.</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
          <attachment
              isobsolete="0"
              ispatch="1"
              isprivate="0"
          >
            <attachid>67526</attachid>
            <date>2010-09-14 01:32:13 -0700</date>
            <delta_ts>2010-09-14 12:17:40 -0700</delta_ts>
            <desc>possible Patch</desc>
            <filename>xmlmemory.patch</filename>
            <type>text/plain</type>
            <size>1316</size>
            <attacher name="Patrick R. Gansterer">paroga</attacher>
            
              <data encoding="base64">SW5kZXg6IFdlYkNvcmUvZG9tL1hNTERvY3VtZW50UGFyc2VyTGlieG1sMi5jcHAKPT09PT09PT09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</data>
<flag name="review"
          id="56849"
          type_id="1"
          status="-"
          setter="mrowe"
    />
    <flag name="commit-queue"
          id="56850"
          type_id="3"
          status="-"
          setter="paroga"
    />
          </attachment>
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>