From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Antipov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reachable killed buffers Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:01:26 +0400 Message-ID: <50521F76.6000305@yandex.ru> References: <504848D0.4020908@yandex.ru> <5048D826.3040103@yandex.ru> <5049C400.8070400@gmx.at> <504DB6DD.9030002@yandex.ru> <504E042E.5040100@yandex.ru> <504ECB49.4050509@yandex.ru> <50504349.7090603@gmx.at> <50509262.1070601@cs.ucla.edu> <50509533.9000502@yandex.ru> <50509698.5060108@cs.ucla.edu> <505098FB.1020801@gmx.at> <5050B151.2020304@yandex.ru> <5050CC93.3010506@cs.ucla.edu> <5051645B.9070308@cs.ucla.edu> <50520EA7.7060707@gmx.at> <505213DF.8050300@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1347559316 12692 80.91.229.3 (13 Sep 2012 18:01:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:01:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: martin rudalics , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 13 20:01:59 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TCDjh-0002bo-Rm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:01:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34276 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TCDje-0002zk-56 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:01:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35686) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TCDjX-0002yv-KM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:01:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TCDjS-0004Kd-Hk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:01:47 -0400 Original-Received: from forward1h.mail.yandex.net ([84.201.187.146]:49772) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TCDjS-0004Fg-4u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:01:42 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp1h.mail.yandex.net (smtp1h.mail.yandex.net [84.201.187.144]) by forward1h.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 4DE439E17A6; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:01:27 +0400 (MSK) Original-Received: from smtp1h.mail.yandex.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1h.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id E1FF61340164; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:01:26 +0400 (MSK) Original-Received: from unknown (unknown [37.139.80.10]) by smtp1h.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTP id 1QUOEwrW-1QU0rHS8; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:01:26 +0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1347559286; bh=nJX4i6O3tkB5i3dF0TCgQ9bIx+39HG5BytDlFBXzyhg=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Hnnwds6W5lneLGs0DfIhcHIH6Ig5/3d0chuurTUt50YfovRsmUTDg4+0pVtIu9b4i 0GcpCUfP/fIZpt1rJ8mymEMgND/NZwqcQWtBNMLvYW98gegmmO40DRL5Cbt1UpVk6k xRVXPvMmJusXQ4InnMQFyzDaw0hmxV9bbdTnReBw= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 In-Reply-To: <505213DF.8050300@cs.ucla.edu> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 84.201.187.146 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:153288 Archived-At: On 09/13/2012 09:11 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > Right, but as I understand it in the meantime it would still exist as > a dead buffer, and would continue to pressure the GC. And it might > inadvertently survive the next sweep too, no? The goal is to reclaim > all the dead buffers, not just some of them. No. If finding dead buffer pointer requires the long walk through a lot of large objects, it's not worth doing; the goal is to find dead buffer pointers in some "special slots" where such a pointers tends to concentrate (like prev_buffers and next_buffers of window objects) and to hope that the most of dead buffers are reachable just once and so can be reclaimed if we do not reference them from such a "special slots". Dmitry