Re: [Boost-users] Pool ordered_malloc and O(n)

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Pool ordered_malloc and O(n)
From: Raindog (raindog_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-20 00:47:06

Georg Sauthoff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the boost pool documentation states ordererd_malloc(n) and boost::free(chunk,
> n) both take O(n). I tested it with a workload of a lot of n=1 and n=2
> small allocations.
>
> Basically if I just use boost::malloc(2*base_size) even if i just need
> boost::malloc(base_size) the runtime is 1 min. With
> ordered_malloc(_)/boost::free(_,_) the runtime explodes (>> 30 minutes)
> (I terminated the program).  Profiling it, one can see, that
> ordered_malloc dominates the runtime (83 % after a few minutes).
>
> Is this a known issue? Is the runtime of ordered_malloc in O(n), i.e. in
> O(c\cdot n), but the constant factor c is very huge?
>
> Best regards
> Georg Sauthoff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>
>   
Are you using Visual C++? You might have to disable its checked 
iterators if so.