There needs to be more competition in the malloc space. Between various huge page sizes and transparent huge pages, there are a lot of gains to be had over what you get from a default GNU libc.
Our results from July 2025:
rows are <allocator>: <RSS>, <time spent for allocator operations>
app1:
glibc: 215,580 KB, 133 ms
mimalloc 2.1.7: 144,092 KB, 91 ms
mimalloc 2.2.4: 173,240 KB, 280 ms
tcmalloc: 138,496 KB, 96 ms
jemalloc: 147,408 KB, 92 ms
app2, bench1
glibc: 1,165,000 KB, 1.4 s
mimalloc 2.1.7: 1,072,000 KB, 5.1 s
mimalloc 2.2.4:
tcmalloc: 1,023,000 KB, 530 ms
app2, bench2
glibc: 1,190,224 KB, 1.5 s
mimalloc 2.1.7: 1,128,328 KB, 5.3 s
mimalloc 2.2.4: 1,657,600 KB, 3.7 s
tcmalloc: 1,045,968 KB, 640 ms
jemalloc: 1,210,000 KB, 1.1 s
app3
glibc: 284,616 KB, 440 ms
mimalloc 2.1.7: 246,216 KB, 250 ms
mimalloc 2.2.4: 325,184 KB, 290 ms
tcmalloc: 178,688 KB, 200 ms
jemalloc: 264,688 KB, 230 ms
i don't recall which jemalloc was tested.
tcmalloc (thread caching malloc) assumes memory allocations have good thread locality. This is often a double win (less false sharing of cache lines, and most allocations hit thread-local data structures in the allocator).
Multithreaded async systems destroy that locality, so it constantly has to run through the exception case: A allocated a buffer, went async, the request wakes up on thread B, which frees the buffer, and has to synchronize with A to give it back.
Are you using async rust, or sync rust?
[0]: https://github.com/google/tcmalloc/blob/master/docs/design.m...
Edit: I see mimalloc v3 is out – I missed that! That probably moots this discussion altogether.
Even toolchains like Turbo Pascal for MS-DOS, had an API to customise the memory allocator.
The one size fits all was never a solution.
If you got a web request, you could allocate a memory pool for it, then you would do all your memory allocations from that pool. And when your web request ended - either cleanly or with a hundred different kinds of errors, you could just free the entire pool.
it was nice and made an impression on me.
I think the lowly malloc probably has lots of interesting ways growing and changing.
(99% of the time, I find this less problematic than Java’s approach, fwiw).
I heard that was a common complaint for minecraft
To an outsider, that looks like the JVM heap just steadily growing, which is easy to mistake for a memory leak.
It was a better idea when Java had the old mark and sweep collector. However, with the generational collectors (which are all Java collectors now. except for epsilon) it's more problematic. Reusing buffers and objects in those buffers will pretty much guarantees that buffer ends up in oldgen. That means to clear it out, the VM has to do more expensive collections.
The actual allocation time for most of Java's collectors is almost 0, it's a capacity check and a pointer bump in most circumstances. Giving the JVM more memory will generally solve issues with memory pressure and GC times. That's (generally) a better solution to performance problems vs doing the large buffer.
Now, that said, there certainly have been times where allocation pressure is a major problem and removing the allocation is the solution. In particular, I've found boxing to often be a major cause of performance problems.
Yes, if you want to use huge pages with arbitrary alloc/free, then use a third-party malloc
Last time I checked mimalloc which was admittedly a while ago, probably 5 years, it was noticebly worse and I saw a lot of people on their github issues agreeing with me so I just never looked at it again.
Jemalloc can usually keep the smallest memory footprint, followed by tcmalloc.
Mimalloc can really speed things up sometimes.
As usually, YMMV.
Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing, so I am not inclined to trust it now.
That’s… ahistorical, at least so far as I remember. It wasn’t marketed as either of those; it was marketed as small/simple/consistent with an opt-in high-severity mode, and then its performance bore out as a result of the first set of target features/design goals. It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc.
https://jemalloc.net/jemalloc.3.html
One thing to call out: sdallocx integrates well with C++'s sized delete semantics: https://isocpp.org/files/papers/n3778.html
The nice thing about mimalloc is that there are a ton of configurable knobs available via env vars. I'm able to hand those 16 1 GiB pages to the program at launch via `MIMALLOC_RESERVE_HUGE_OS_PAGES=16`.
EDIT: after re-reading your comment a few times, I apologize if you already knew this (which it sounds like you did).
During my time at Facebook, I maintained a bunch of kernel patches to improve jemalloc purging mechanisms. It wasn't popular in the kernel or the security community, but it was more efficient on benchmarks for sure.
Many programs run multiple threads, allocate in one and free in the other. Jemalloc's primary mechanism used to be: madvise the page back to the kernel and then have it allocate it in another thread's pool.
One problem: this involves zero'ing memory, which has an impact on cache locality and over all app performance. It's completely unnecessary if the page is being recirculated within the same security domain.
The problem was getting everyone to agree on what that security domain is, even if the mechanism was opt-in.
Most of the savings seemed to come from HVAC costs, followed by buying less computers and in turn less data centers. I'm sure these days saving memory is also a big deal but it doesn't seem to have been then.
The above was already the case 10 years ago, so LLMs are at most another factor added on.
Jemalloc Postmortem - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44264958 - June 2025 (233 comments)
Jemalloc Repositories Are Archived - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44161128 - June 2025 (7 comments)
I'm glad HHVM happened, and also glad it stalled. I don't think PHP 7 and 8 would've made the improvements they did without HHVM kicking their ass, and I think there would've been a fork based on HHVM rather than PHP 8 if HHVM hadn't lost that public momentum.
I remember Wikimedia's testing/partial implementation of HHVM[1] being a turning point, at least in the circles I was in at the time. It showed PHP performance could actually be improved, and by quite a lot. Without that proof of concept at that scale _in the open_, HHVM devs could've ran benchmarks from here to eternity and people still would've said, "yeah, sure, _if you're Facebook_"
1: https://techblog.wikimedia.org/2014/12/29/how-we-made-editin...
From the Department of Redundancy Department.
Facebook's coding AIs to the rescue, maybe? I wonder how good all these "agentic" AIs are at dreaded refactoring jobs like these.
There are not many engineers capable of working on memory allocators, so adding more burden by agentic stuff is unlikely to produce anything of value.
No.
This is something you shouldn't allow coding agents anywhere near, unless you have expert-level understanding required to maintain the project like the previous authors have done without an AI for years.
Second thoughts: Actually the fb.com post is more transparent than I'd have predicted. Not bad at all. Of course it helps that they're delivering good news!
Initially the idea was diagnostics, instead the the problem disappeared on its own.
He's doing just fine. If you're looking for a story about a FAANG company not paying engineers well for their work, this isn't it.
> This branch is 71 commits ahead of and 70 commits behind jemalloc/jemalloc:dev.
It looks like both have been independently updated.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...