From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Concurrent GC via fork (was: Opportunistic GC) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 13:24:16 -0500 Message-ID: References: <666da624-2f59-2eb4-8e56-f0ad20dd900c@gmx.at> <26ff7447-9c29-a2f2-bf3d-9eac20a95d0f@gmx.at> <1401c9fa-4236-4060-9a32-51354ab5bd0f@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31534"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, Pip Cet , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 08 19:41:04 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lJKoR-00086R-TG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 19:41:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48396 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJKoQ-0006YT-VP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 13:41:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35884) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJKYJ-0007kc-If for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 13:24:23 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:65184) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJKYH-00040s-7d; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 13:24:22 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 296F910025D; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 13:24:19 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C95D71001D2; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 13:24:17 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1615227857; bh=IQ/7xuklFiKUFj7PjqfcFfbQD0QUGZsaJb5JDSEBifs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=f/4XWbtkTUktN6Ekt7Mtpsh2pA4PLPkETJ3FAKHuqRRkTskHAZRYdg6FY82DO4bOV FMdms9sweRyr9Yg4jV2aRMf0bG/ZgbCossAIIsNT4yUgBfwjmOwPn768YgTSV9MuuA BwKQyTy6Ns7d19BndubMhas3u4IIFpvTgrSo2nn3asnH19/AE/wsr4906A/9SfZuvz QGEVnKoFBb8RpY3UWzfc6u6bnsupNbMPpbysYgfWowXw0j9yAMTzZCAFcry1NFV/Nm L9NLKETuJJEcbATrYe3V3tzINurbihE39oQRaNDIdCJccvhRheUINNUw0jq6MzVA6T OEZk2Aw9SNQZQ== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.43.249]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 982A51203AB; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 13:24:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1401c9fa-4236-4060-9a32-51354ab5bd0f@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Mon, 8 Mar 2021 19:06:43 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:266216 Archived-At: >> I don't think it's going to matter in practice, though. GC, after all, >> does not take that long, > .. as long as we do not increase the heap size with the excuse that GC > is now no more intrusive anyway ... That same argument could be used to lower the `gc-cons-percentage` ;-) > So you mean mark-and-sweep as opposed to copying. In principle, a > generational collector could be mark-and-sweep too. Not just in principle. E.g. it's common to use stop© when collecting the nursery and mark&sweep when collecting the old space. Stefan