The post starts out by explaining that malloc is a generic allocator and is thus less performant. Your comment seems premised on the idea that the author is suggesting a replacement for malloc in all its use cases, which he pointedly is not doing. Instead of him re-running his benchmarks, you should give the post a closer re-read.
I hate to go meta, but that last sentence in your post could have been omitted with no detriment to the post's message and great improvement to the tone.
