From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Eager garbage collection Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:30:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20201118002050.16426-1-sbaugh@catern.com> <835z62r9fb.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Andrea Corallo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39622"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: sbaugh@catern.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 18 16:33:13 2020 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 1kfPSK-000AB8-S5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 16:33:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42376 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kfPSJ-0006Oq-TH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 10:33:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37406) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kfPPl-0003e3-VR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 10:30:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:63034) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kfPPi-0003RF-74; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 10:30:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mab (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 0AIFUO6T016343; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:30:24 GMT In-Reply-To: <835z62r9fb.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:06:48 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=akrl@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/11/18 10:30:26 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = ??? X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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:259354 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 08:02:17 +0000 >> From: Andrea Corallo via "Emacs development discussions." >> >> My question is, what is the advantage of this implementation respect the >> pure Lisp one we have? >> >> >> >> AFAIU they achieve the same. If that's the case I indeed prefer the >> Lisp one as simpler and easier to extend. > > AFAICT, the basic idea is very different, so the results will probably > also be different. My understanding is that they both: - Run the normal GC with a threshold X1 - Run after an idle time t GC with threshold X2, where X2 < X1 This patch compute X2 in terms of X1 using `gc-opportunistic-eager-factor' while in gcmh one specify `gcmh-low-cons-threshold' and `gcmh-high-cons-threshold' but conceptually looks the same to me. Am I wrong? Andrea