Hoard

Pros of jemalloc

• Better performance in multi-threaded environments
• More advanced memory fragmentation reduction techniques
• Wider adoption and community support

Cons of jemalloc

• More complex configuration and tuning required
• Potentially higher memory overhead in some scenarios
• Less portable across different operating systems

Code Comparison

jemalloc:

#include <jemalloc/jemalloc.h>

void *ptr = malloc(size);
je_free(ptr);

Hoard:

#include <hoard.h>

void *ptr = xxmalloc(size);
xxfree(ptr);

Key Differences

• jemalloc offers more fine-grained control over memory allocation strategies
• Hoard focuses on simplicity and ease of use
• jemalloc provides extensive statistics and profiling tools
• Hoard emphasizes scalability in multi-threaded applications

Use Cases

• jemalloc: Large-scale applications with complex memory requirements
• Hoard: Applications prioritizing simplicity and cross-platform compatibility

Community and Support

• jemalloc: Larger community, more frequent updates
• Hoard: Smaller community, less frequent updates but still actively maintained

Pros of mimalloc

• Designed for high performance and scalability, often outperforming Hoard in benchmarks
• Offers extensive customization options and fine-grained control over memory allocation
• Provides better support for modern CPU architectures and memory models

Cons of mimalloc

• May have a steeper learning curve due to its more complex API and configuration options
• Less mature project compared to Hoard, potentially leading to fewer community resources

Code Comparison

mimalloc:

#include <mimalloc.h>

void* ptr = mi_malloc(size);
mi_free(ptr);

Hoard:

#include <hoard.h>

void* ptr = xxmalloc(size);
xxfree(ptr);

Both libraries aim to provide efficient memory allocation, but mimalloc offers more advanced features and optimizations. Hoard focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while mimalloc prioritizes performance and customization. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and performance needs.

Pros of gperftools

• More comprehensive toolset, including CPU and heap profilers
• Wider platform support, including non-x86 architectures
• Active development and maintenance

Cons of gperftools

• Higher complexity and learning curve
• Potentially larger memory footprint
• May require more setup and configuration

Code Comparison

gperftools:

#include <gperftools/tcmalloc.h>

void* custom_alloc(size_t size) {
  return tc_malloc(size);
}

Hoard:

#include "hoard.h"

void* custom_alloc(size_t size) {
  return xxmalloc(size);
}

Key Differences

• gperftools offers a more extensive suite of performance tools, while Hoard focuses primarily on memory allocation
• Hoard is designed for simplicity and ease of use, whereas gperftools provides more advanced features
• gperftools includes profiling capabilities, which are not present in Hoard
• Hoard may have better performance in certain multithreaded scenarios due to its scalable memory allocator design

Both libraries aim to improve memory management and overall application performance, but they take different approaches. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements, platform constraints, and the desired balance between simplicity and feature richness.

Pros of rpmalloc

• Designed for high performance and low memory overhead
• Supports cross-platform development, including game consoles
• Offers thread-local caching for improved speed in multi-threaded applications

Cons of rpmalloc

• Less mature and less widely adopted compared to Hoard
• May require more manual configuration for optimal performance
• Limited documentation and community support

Code Comparison

rpmalloc:

void* ptr = rpmalloc(size);
rpfree(ptr);

Hoard:

#include <hoard.h>
void* ptr = xxmalloc(size);
xxfree(ptr);

Key Differences

• rpmalloc focuses on performance and low memory overhead, while Hoard emphasizes scalability and reduced fragmentation
• rpmalloc uses a thread-local caching mechanism, whereas Hoard employs a global heap structure
• rpmalloc is more lightweight and may be easier to integrate into existing projects, while Hoard offers a more comprehensive memory management solution

Use Cases

• rpmalloc: Ideal for performance-critical applications, especially in game development and embedded systems
• Hoard: Well-suited for large-scale, multi-threaded applications where scalability and reduced fragmentation are crucial

Pros of Mesh

• Offers better memory fragmentation handling through meshing
• Provides improved security features like randomized allocation
• Supports large-scale multithreaded applications more efficiently

Cons of Mesh

• May have higher overhead for small allocations
• Potentially more complex implementation and maintenance
• Could be less suitable for systems with limited memory resources

Code Comparison

Hoard:

void * xxmalloc(size_t sz) {
  if (sz == 0) {
    return NULL;
  }
  void * ptr = getHeader(sz)->malloc(sz);
  if (ptr == NULL) {
    return NULL;
  }
  return ptr;
}

Mesh:

void *MeshHeap::malloc(size_t sz) {
  if (unlikely(sz == 0)) {
    sz = 1;
  }
  const auto sizeClass = SizeMap::SizeClass(sz);
  void *ptr = _current[sizeClass].malloc(sizeClass);
  if (unlikely(ptr == nullptr)) {
    ptr = slowPathMalloc(sz);
  }
  return ptr;
}

Both allocators implement custom malloc functions, but Mesh's implementation includes size class handling and a slow path for complex allocations, potentially offering more flexibility and optimization opportunities.

Pros of snmalloc

• Designed for high scalability and performance in multi-threaded environments
• Implements a novel "message passing" allocation strategy for improved efficiency
• Offers better support for modern CPU architectures and memory models

Cons of snmalloc

• May have higher memory overhead in certain scenarios compared to Hoard
• Less mature and widely adopted than Hoard, potentially leading to fewer community resources

Code Comparison

snmalloc:

void* alloc = snmalloc::ThreadAlloc::get().alloc(size);
snmalloc::ThreadAlloc::get().dealloc(alloc);

Hoard:

void* alloc = hoard_malloc(size);
hoard_free(alloc);

Both allocators aim to provide efficient memory management for multi-threaded applications, but they employ different strategies. snmalloc focuses on a message-passing approach and modern CPU optimizations, while Hoard emphasizes scalability through its heap layering technique.

snmalloc may offer better performance in highly concurrent scenarios, especially on newer hardware. However, Hoard has a longer track record and may be more suitable for applications requiring broad compatibility.

The code comparison shows that both allocators provide similar interfaces for allocation and deallocation, making it relatively straightforward to switch between them in most cases.