We evaluated a few allocators for some of our Linux apps and found (modern) tcmalloc to consistently win in time and space. Our applications are primarily written in Rust and the allocators were linked in statically (except for glibc). Unfortunately I didn't capture much context on the allocation patterns. I think in general the apps allocate and deallocate at a higher rate than most Rust apps (or more than I'd like at least).
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.
I’m surprised (unless they replaced the core tcmalloc algorithm but kept the name).
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?
modern tcmalloc uses per CPU caches via rseq [0]. We use async rust with multithreaded tokio executors (sometimes multiple in the same application). so relatively high thread counts.
[0]: https://github.com/google/tcmalloc/blob/master/docs/design.m...
How do you control which CPU your task resumes on? If you don't then it's still the same problem described above, no?
That’s a considerable regression for mimalloc between 2.1 and 2.2 – did you track it down or report it upstream?
Edit: I see mimalloc v3 is out – I missed that! That probably moots this discussion altogether.
nope.
This is similar to what I experienced when I tested mimalloc many years ago. If it was faster, it wasn't faster by much, and had pretty bad worst cases.