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: Opportunistic GC Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 14:06:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <666da624-2f59-2eb4-8e56-f0ad20dd900c@gmx.at> <26ff7447-9c29-a2f2-bf3d-9eac20a95d0f@gmx.at> 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="28309"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Pip Cet , martin rudalics , eliz@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Kangas Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 08 15:08:33 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 1lJGYj-0007Ig-1U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 15:08:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36120 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJGYi-00047u-0K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 09:08:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57728) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJGWR-0000La-H6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 09:06:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:61776) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJGWP-0007xd-TU; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 09:06:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mab (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 128E61im017766 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Mon, 8 Mar 2021 14:06:01 GMT In-Reply-To: (Stefan Kangas's message of "Mon, 8 Mar 2021 03:38:52 -0800") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=akrl@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org 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:266180 Archived-At: Stefan Kangas writes: > Pip Cet writes: > >> Note that none of this is "real" GC: we still mark and sweep, just in >> a slightly smarter way. > > Do you see any significant pros (or cons) to the approach you suggest as > compared to a generational GC? > > Would we want/need to move to a generational GC if we had what you > describe? I think generational GC are generally great for efficiency, but for the kind of application Emacs is and the multi-core world we live in I think we are more interest in parallelism. IOW we may be very happy to sacrifice efficiency if we gain in parallelism and diminish or zero the GC pauses. Regards Andrea