From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Han-Wen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: scm_register_collectable_memory() ? Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:20:33 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <15692.7921.99684.944726@blauw.xs4all.nl> Reply-To: hanwen@cs.uu.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028398653 17398 127.0.0.1 (3 Aug 2002 18:17:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 18:17:33 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17b3T2-0004WV-00 for ; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 20:17:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17b3TX-0004rK-00; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 14:18:03 -0400 Original-Received: from smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.141]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17b3St-0004oh-00 for ; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 14:17:23 -0400 Original-Received: from blauw.xs4all.nl (blauw.xs4all.nl [213.84.26.127]) by smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g73IHMSW071191 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 20:17:22 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailer: VM 7.05 under Emacs 21.2.1 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:942 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:942 Hi, Question: why does GUILE do a GC when a lot of memory malloced memory is used? I understand that doing GC frees up some of that memory, but every piece of collectable malloc memory is already connected with a cell, and we do GC for those regularly (i.e. when we run out of cells.) For example, the doc snarfer, which is quite heavy with malloced stuff (strings), does many times more often malloc triggered GCs, and most the of the yields are low. Why don't we measure yields, and adjust the triggers, similar to how cells are done? Precise numbers: 58 gcs, of which 47 are induced by scm_register_collectable_memory(). Average yield (i.e (mallocedbefore - mallocedafter) / mallocedbefore ) of 14 %. This is for the snarf-check-and-output-texi script, run on the GUILE sources. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | hanwen@cs.uu.nl | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel