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.
(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.
This feels like a huge understatement. I still have some PTSD around when I did Java professionally between like 2005 and 2014.
The early part of that was particularly horrible.
Baring bugs/native leaks - Java has a very predictable memory allocation.
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.
For example, some code I had to clean up pretty early on in my career was a dev, for unknown reasons, reinventing the `ArrayList` and then using that invention as a set (doing deduplication by iterating over the elements and checking for duplicates). It was done in the name of performance, but it was never a slow part of the code. I replaced the whole thing with a `HashSet` and saved ~300 loc as a result.
This individual did that sort of stuff all over the code base.
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 of growing and changing.
Yes, if you want to use huge pages with arbitrary alloc/free, then use a third-party malloc. If your alloc/free patterns are not arbitrary, you can do even better. We treat malloc as a magic black box but it's actually not very good.
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.
That is true of basically every single malloc replacement out there, that is not a uniquely defining feature.
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).
My old Intel CPU only has 4 slots for 1GB pages, and that was enough to get me about a 20% performance boost on Factorio. (I think a couple percent might have been allocator change but the boost from forcing huge pages was very significant)