Implementation: Move HAKMEM_TINY_FAST_PATH check BEFORE all guard checks
in malloc(), inspired by mimalloc/tcache entry point design.
Strategy:
- tcache has 0 branches before fast path
- mimalloc has 1-2 branches before fast path
- Old HAKMEM had 8+ branches before fast path
- Phase 1: Move fast path to line 1, add branch prediction hints
Changes in core/hakmem.c:
1. Fast Path First: Size check → Init check → Cache hit (3 branches)
2. Slow Path: All guards moved after fast path (rare cases)
3. Branch hints: __builtin_expect() for hot paths
Expected results (from research):
- ST: 0.46M → 1.4-2.3M ops/s (+204-400%)
- MT: 1.86M → 3.7-5.6M ops/s (+99-201%)
Actual results (Larson 2s 8-128B 1024):
- ST: 0.377M → 0.424M ops/s (+12% only)
- MT: 1.856M → 1.453M ops/s (-22% regression!)
Analysis:
- Similar pattern to previous Option A test (+42% ST, -20% MT)
- Entry point reordering alone is insufficient
- True bottleneck may be:
1. tiny_fast_alloc() internals (size-to-class, cache access)
2. Refill cost (1,600 cycles for 16 individual calls)
3. Need Batch Refill optimization (Phase 3) as priority
Next steps:
- Investigate refill bottleneck with perf profiling
- Consider implementing Phase 3 (Batch Refill) before Phase 2
- May need combination of multiple optimizations for breakthrough
Related: LARSON_PERFORMANCE_ANALYSIS_2025_11_05.md
3e4e90eadb