Pros of mimalloc

• Designed for better performance in multi-threaded applications
• Simpler API and easier integration into existing projects
• More frequent updates and active development

Cons of mimalloc

• Less battle-tested in large-scale production environments
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to TCMalloc
• May not perform as well for specific use cases optimized by TCMalloc

Code comparison

mimalloc:

#include <mimalloc.h>

void* p = mi_malloc(sizeof(int));
mi_free(p);

TCMalloc:

#include <gperftools/tcmalloc.h>

void* p = tc_malloc(sizeof(int));
tc_free(p);

Both libraries aim to provide efficient memory allocation, but mimalloc focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while TCMalloc offers more advanced features and customization options. mimalloc's API is more straightforward, making it easier to integrate into existing projects. However, TCMalloc has a longer history and may be more suitable for specific large-scale applications that benefit from its optimizations.

The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as performance needs, ease of integration, and the target environment.

Pros of jemalloc

• Better performance for multi-threaded applications
• More consistent and predictable memory usage patterns
• Extensive profiling and debugging tools built-in

Cons of jemalloc

• Slightly higher memory overhead in some cases
• Less integrated with Google's ecosystem and tools
• May require more manual tuning for optimal performance

Code Comparison

tcmalloc:

void* malloc(size_t size) {
  void* result = do_malloc(size);
  MallocHook::InvokeNewHook(result, size);
  return result;
}

jemalloc:

void *
je_malloc(size_t size)
{
    void *ret;
    if (malloc_init())
        return (NULL);
    ret = imalloc(size);
    return (ret);
}

Both implementations provide similar core functionality, but jemalloc's approach is more straightforward, while tcmalloc includes additional hooks for customization and monitoring.

Pros of snmalloc

• Designed for better scalability in multi-threaded environments
• Implements a novel "message passing" allocation strategy for improved performance
• Offers better security features, including randomization and guard pages

Cons of snmalloc

• Less mature and less widely adopted compared to tcmalloc
• May have higher memory overhead in certain scenarios
• Limited documentation and community support

Code Comparison

snmalloc:

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

tcmalloc:

void* alloc = tc_malloc(size);
tc_free(alloc);

Both allocators provide similar APIs, but snmalloc uses a thread-local allocator object, while tcmalloc uses global functions. snmalloc's approach can lead to better performance in multi-threaded scenarios.

snmalloc focuses on scalability and security, making it potentially better suited for large-scale, multi-threaded applications with high-security requirements. However, tcmalloc has a longer track record and wider adoption, which may make it a safer choice for many projects. The choice between the two depends on specific project needs, performance requirements, and the importance of cutting-edge features versus established reliability.

Pros of rpmalloc

• Lightweight and portable, with minimal dependencies
• Designed for cross-platform use, including game consoles
• Faster allocation and deallocation for small objects

Cons of rpmalloc

• Less mature and less widely adopted than TCMalloc
• May not perform as well for large-scale, multi-threaded applications
• Limited documentation and community support compared to TCMalloc

Code Comparison

TCMalloc:

#include <tcmalloc/tcmalloc.h>

void* ptr = tc_malloc(size);
tc_free(ptr);

rpmalloc:

#include <rpmalloc.h>

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

Both libraries aim to provide efficient memory allocation, but they have different focuses. TCMalloc is designed for large-scale applications and offers advanced features like heap profiling. rpmalloc prioritizes simplicity, portability, and performance for small allocations, making it suitable for games and embedded systems. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as target platforms, application size, and performance needs.

Pros of Mesh

• Focuses on reducing memory fragmentation through mesh-based allocation
• Designed to be a drop-in replacement for malloc, making integration easier
• Potentially better performance for applications with high memory churn

Cons of Mesh

• Less mature and battle-tested compared to TCMalloc
• May have higher overhead for small allocations
• Limited platform support compared to TCMalloc's wide adoption

Code Comparison

TCMalloc:

void* TCMalloc_Malloc(size_t size) {
  void* result = do_malloc(size);
  MallocHook::InvokeNewHook(result, size);
  return result;
}

Mesh:

void* mesh_malloc(size_t sz) {
  void* ptr = _mesh_malloc(sz);
  if (unlikely(ptr == nullptr))
    return nullptr;
  return ptr;
}

Both implementations provide similar interfaces for memory allocation, but Mesh's implementation is more straightforward, reflecting its focus on simplicity and ease of integration. TCMalloc's implementation includes additional hooks for monitoring and customization, showcasing its more feature-rich nature.

TCMalloc is widely used in large-scale production environments and offers extensive performance optimizations. Mesh, on the other hand, provides a novel approach to memory management that may be beneficial for specific use cases, particularly those involving large allocations or high fragmentation scenarios.