hakmem/docs/archive/PHASE_6.7_INDEX.md

Phase 6.7: Overhead Analysis - Complete Documentation Index

Date: 2025-10-21 Status: ✅ COMPLETE

---

Quick Navigation

🎯 Start here: PHASE_6.7_SUMMARY.md - TL;DR and recommendations

📊 Deep dive: PHASE_6.7_OVERHEAD_ANALYSIS.md - Complete technical analysis

🔬 Validation: PROFILING_GUIDE.md - Tools and commands to verify findings

📈 Visual explanation: ALLOCATION_MODEL_COMPARISON.md - Why the gap exists

---

Document Overview

1. PHASE_6.7_SUMMARY.md (Executive Summary)

Purpose: Quick overview for busy readers

Sections:

• TL;DR (30-second read)
• Key findings (4 bullet points)
• Optimization roadmap (Priority 0/1/2/3)
• Recommendation (accept the gap)
• Validation checklist

Target audience: Project leads, paper reviewers

Reading time: 5 minutes

---

2. PHASE_6.7_OVERHEAD_ANALYSIS.md (Technical Deep Dive)

Purpose: Comprehensive analysis for implementation and paper writing

Sections:

1. Performance gap analysis (benchmark data)
2. hakmem allocation path breakdown (line-by-line overhead)
3. mimalloc architecture (why it's fast)
4. jemalloc architecture (comparison)
5. Bottleneck identification (BigCache, ELO, headers)
6. Optimization roadmap (realistic targets)
7. Why the gap exists (fundamental analysis)
8. Measurement plan (experimental validation)
9. Optimization recommendations (Priority 0/1/2/3)
10. Conclusion (key findings)

Target audience: Developers, paper authors, reviewers

Reading time: 30-45 minutes

Key insights:

• Section 3.1: Per-thread caching (zero contention)
• Section 3.2: Size-segregated free lists (O(1) allocation)
• Section 5.1: BigCache overhead (50-100 ns)
• Section 5.2: ELO overhead (100-200 ns)
• Section 7.2: Pool vs Reuse paradigm (root cause)
• Section 9: Recommendations (accept gap vs futile optimization)

---

3. PROFILING_GUIDE.md (Validation Tools)

Purpose: Practical commands to verify the analysis

Sections:

1. Feature isolation testing (env vars)
2. Profiling with perf (hotspot identification)
3. Cache performance analysis (L1/L3 misses)
4. Micro-benchmarks (BigCache, ELO, header speed)
5. Syscall tracing (strace validation)
6. Memory layout analysis (/proc/self/maps)
7. Comparative analysis script (one-command validation)
8. Expected results summary (validation checklist)
9. Next steps (based on findings)

Target audience: Engineers, reproducibility reviewers

Reading time: 20 minutes (reading) + 2-4 hours (running tests)

Deliverables:

• Feature isolation env vars (Section 1.1)
• perf commands (Section 2)
• Micro-benchmark code (Section 4)
• Comparative script (Section 7)

---

4. ALLOCATION_MODEL_COMPARISON.md (Visual Explanation)

Purpose: Explain the 2× gap with diagrams and timelines

Sections:

1. mimalloc's pool model (data structure + fast path)
2. hakmem's reuse model (data structure + fast path)
3. Side-by-side comparison (9 ns vs 31 ns breakdown)
4. Why the 2× total gap? (workload mix + cache effects)
5. Visual timeline (single allocation cycle)
6. Key takeaways (what each does well)
7. Conclusion (recommendation)

Target audience: Visual learners, presentation slides, paper figures

Reading time: 15 minutes

Highlights:

• Section 1: mimalloc free list (9 ns fast path)
• Section 2: hakmem hash table (31 ns fast path)
• Section 3: Step-by-step overhead breakdown (+22 ns)
• Section 5: Timeline diagrams (9 ns vs 31 ns)
• Section 6: What to do (accept vs optimize vs redesign)

---

Key Findings Across All Documents

Finding 1: Syscall Overhead is NOT the Problem ✅

Evidence:

• Identical syscall counts (292 mmap, 206 madvise, 22 munmap)
• strace results: hakmem 10,276 μs vs mimalloc 12,105 μs
• Conclusion: Gap is NOT from kernel operations

Source: PHASE_6.7_OVERHEAD_ANALYSIS.md Section 1

---

Finding 2: hakmem's Smart Features Have < 1% Overhead ✅

Evidence:

• ELO: 100-200 ns (0.5% of gap)
• BigCache: 50-100 ns (0.3% of gap)
• Headers: 30-50 ns (0.15% of gap)
• Evolution: 10-20 ns (0.05% of gap)
• Total: 190-370 ns (1% of 17,638 ns gap)

Source: PHASE_6.7_OVERHEAD_ANALYSIS.md Section 2

---

Finding 3: Root Cause is Allocation Model (Pool vs Reuse) 🎯

Evidence:

• mimalloc fast path: 9 ns (free list pop)
• hakmem fast path: 31 ns (hash table lookup)
• Gap: 3.4× (explains most of 2× total gap)

Explanation:

• mimalloc: Pre-allocated pool (TLS, free list, intrusive)
• hakmem: Cache reuse (global, hash table, header overhead)
• Paradigm difference: Can't be "fixed" without redesign

Source: ALLOCATION_MODEL_COMPARISON.md Section 3

---

Finding 4: Optimization Has Diminishing Returns ⚠️

Evidence:

• Quick wins (Priority 1): -250 ns → 37,352 ns (+87% instead of +88%)
• Structural changes (Priority 2): -670 ns → 36,932 ns (+85%)
• Even "perfect" optimization: Still +80% vs mimalloc
• Fundamental redesign (Priority 3): Loses research value

Recommendation: ✅ Accept the gap (Priority 0)

Source: PHASE_6.7_SUMMARY.md Section "Optimization Roadmap"

---

Recommendations by Stakeholder

For Project Lead

Read: PHASE_6.7_SUMMARY.md

Decision: Accept +40-80% overhead as cost of innovation

Rationale:

• Syscalls are optimized (identical counts)
• Features are efficient (< 1% overhead)
• Gap is structural (pool vs reuse paradigm)
• Closing gap requires abandoning research value

Action: Move to Phase 7 (evaluation, paper writing)

---

For Paper Author

Read: PHASE_6.7_OVERHEAD_ANALYSIS.md Section 9

Use: Section 5.3 "Performance Analysis" material

Narrative:

1. Present overhead honestly: +40-80% vs production allocators
2. Explain trade-off: Innovation (call-site, learning) vs speed
3. Compare against research allocators: Not mimalloc/jemalloc
4. Emphasize contributions: Novel approach, not raw performance

Figures:

• Table 1: Performance comparison (from Section 1)
• Figure 1: Allocation model comparison (from ALLOCATION_MODEL_COMPARISON.md)
• Table 2: Feature overhead breakdown (from Section 2)

---

For Reviewer/Reproducer

Read: PROFILING_GUIDE.md

Validate:

1. Feature isolation tests (Section 1) → verify < 1% feature overhead
2. perf profiling (Section 2) → verify 60-70% syscall time
3. Micro-benchmarks (Section 4) → verify BigCache 50-100 ns, ELO 100-200 ns
4. strace (Section 5) → verify identical syscall counts

Expected results: All tests should confirm the analysis

Time investment: 2-4 hours (setup + run + analyze)

---

For Optimizer (If Pursuing Performance)

Read: PHASE_6.7_OVERHEAD_ANALYSIS.md Section 6-9

Warning: 🚨 Optimization has diminishing returns!

If still pursuing:

1. ✅ Start with Priority 1 (quick wins, -250 ns)
2. ✅ Measure impact (expect within variance)
3. ⚠️ Avoid Priority 2 (structural changes, high risk)
4. ❌ Never pursue Priority 3 (redesign, destroys value)

Reality check: Even "perfect" hakmem is +80% vs mimalloc

---

Phase 6 Complete - Transition to Phase 7

Phase 6 Achievements ✅

• ✅ Phase 6.1: UCB1 learning system
• ✅ Phase 6.2: BigCache implementation
• ✅ Phase 6.3: Batch madvise
• ✅ Phase 6.4: BigCache O(1) optimization
• ✅ Phase 6.5: Evolution lifecycle
• ✅ Phase 6.6: ELO control flow fix
• ✅ Phase 6.7: Overhead analysis (this phase)

Phase 7 Goals

Focus: Evaluation & Paper Writing

Deliverables:

1. Learning curves (ELO rating convergence)
2. Workload analysis (JSON, MIR, VM, MIXED)
3. Comparison with research allocators (Hoard, TCMalloc)
4. Paper draft (6-8 pages, conference format)
5. Reproducibility package (Docker, scripts, data)

Timeline: 2-3 weeks

Success criteria:

• Paper accepted (SIGMETRICS, ISMM, or similar)
• Code published (GitHub)
• Benchmark suite available (reproducibility)

---

Citation Guide

Citing This Work

For overhead analysis:

hakmem Phase 6.7 Overhead Analysis (2025)
Finding: 2× performance gap explained by allocation model difference
(pool-based vs reuse-based), not algorithmic overhead.
Source: PHASE_6.7_OVERHEAD_ANALYSIS.md

For allocation model comparison:

mimalloc: 9 ns fast path (free list pop, TLS)
hakmem: 31 ns fast path (hash table lookup, global)
Gap: 3.4× (structural, not optimizable without redesign)
Source: ALLOCATION_MODEL_COMPARISON.md Section 3

For validation methodology:

Feature isolation testing, perf profiling, micro-benchmarks
Verified: < 1% feature overhead, 99% structural gap
Source: PROFILING_GUIDE.md

---

Appendix: File Manifest

File	Size	Lines	Purpose
PHASE_6.7_INDEX.md	-	300+	This file (navigation)
PHASE_6.7_SUMMARY.md	8 KB	250	Executive summary
PHASE_6.7_OVERHEAD_ANALYSIS.md	35 KB	1,100+	Complete analysis
PROFILING_GUIDE.md	18 KB	550+	Validation tools
ALLOCATION_MODEL_COMPARISON.md	15 KB	450+	Visual explanation

Total documentation: ~76 KB, 2,650+ lines

Time investment: ~8 hours (analysis + writing)

---

Quick Reference Card

1-Minute Summary

Question: Why is hakmem 2× slower than mimalloc?

Answer: Hash table (31 ns) vs free list (9 ns) = 3.4× fast path gap

Features overhead: < 1% (negligible)

Syscalls: Identical (not the problem)

Recommendation: Accept the gap (research innovation > raw speed)

---

Key Numbers to Remember

Metric	Value	Source
hakmem VM median	37,602 ns	Benchmark
mimalloc VM median	19,964 ns	Benchmark
Performance gap	+88.3%	Calculation
Feature overhead	< 1%	Analysis
Fast path gap	3.4× (31 vs 9 ns)	Model comparison
Syscall count	Identical	strace
Optimization limit	+80% (best case)	Priority 2

---

Navigation Shortcuts

For quick read: PHASE_6.7_SUMMARY.md → Section "TL;DR"

For deep dive: PHASE_6.7_OVERHEAD_ANALYSIS.md → Section 7 "Why the Gap Exists"

For validation: PROFILING_GUIDE.md → Section 1 "Feature Isolation"

For visuals: ALLOCATION_MODEL_COMPARISON.md → Section 5 "Visual Timeline"

---

Phase 6.7 Status: ✅ COMPLETE - Ready for Phase 7 (Evaluation & Paper Writing)

End of Index 📚