On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 01:15:28PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote: > > Hmm, I would have thought prio_queue had less memory overhead. You're > > spending one pointer per entry in a packed array, versus list nodes. But > > it's true that it doesn't shrink as items are removed (though that is > > something we _could_ implement). > > If we just count the net data then a commit_list item has two pointers > and a prio_queue_entry has a pointer and an ID for stability. That's a > tie. ALLOC_GROW overallocates by ca. 50%, so that's 25% more on > average for the prio_queue. No idea what overhead malloc() needs per > allocation, but I guess it's enough to tilt the scale back against > commit_lists. Oh right, I totally forgot about the extra counter. -Peff
