From: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès)
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: GC improvements
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:47:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87psn64tq5.fsf@laas.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87oe2snf01.fsf@laas.fr> (Ludovic Courtès's message of "Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:18:22 +0100")
Hi,
ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> This interleaving of initialization and sweeping makes it pretty hard to
> track exactly where fresh cells come from. I guess one solution might
> be to maintain a list of the uninitialized segments and pick cells
> directly from there before actually sweeping.
Thinking about it, this solution looks like the beginning of the
generational approach to GC: we'd define uninitialized segments (i.e.,
those whose FIRST_TIME field is true) as one generation, and the others
as another generation.
I think we could even have 3 segment generations:
1. The kids, i.e., the uninitialized segments;
2. The youngsters, i.e., segments recently initialized and where
sweeping gave good results in the past;
3. The elderly, i.e., those for which sweeping has been unproductive for
some time already.
Remarks:
* This is a very coarse approach to generational GC as it's done on a
per-segment basis. For this reason, it doesn't make sense to have
more that 3 generations (due to fragmentation, each segment may
include a variety of kids, youngsters, and elderly). Even 3
generations (instead of just 2) is a questionable approach.
OTOH, even though there is fragmentation, I think it's reasonable to
assume that some segments, those created and populated at startup
time, will actually only contain elderly cells, whereas segments
initialized during the life time of the program (especially for
long-running or interactive applications) may be more fragmented and
may be considered as "young". Hence the intermediary generation.
Additionally, I'm assuming that elderly segments cannot move back to
the "youngsters" generation, which seems to be generally assumed in
generational GC.
* This poor man's generational GC has the advantage of being quite easy
to implement. Basically, instead of having a single segment table as
we have now, we'd have to maintain a set of three segment tables,
which would not be too complicated it seems.
In particular, it's much easier to implement than the per-cell
generational GC, as proposed by Greg Harvey in
http://home.thezone.net/~gharvey/guile/ggc-notes.txt . It's also less
intrusive: basically `scm_i_sweep_some_segments ()' is the only place
where generations would be taken into account. Of course, the outcome
would certainly be better with a per-cell approach, but I'd expect the
per-segment approach to yield a non-null benefit for a pretty low
cost.
What do you think? Are there flaws in this reasoning? :-)
Thanks,
Ludovic.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-05 14:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-20 16:32 GC improvements Ludovic Courtès
2005-12-23 11:29 ` Han-Wen Nienhuys
2005-12-23 15:40 ` 1.8 [was: GC improvements] Andy Wingo
2005-12-24 0:59 ` 1.8 Kevin Ryde
2006-01-03 10:16 ` GC improvements Ludovic Courtès
2006-01-04 1:03 ` Han-Wen Nienhuys
2006-01-04 16:18 ` Ludovic Courtès
2006-01-05 14:47 ` Ludovic Courtès [this message]
2006-01-06 20:22 ` Han-Wen Nienhuys
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87psn64tq5.fsf@laas.fr \
--to=ludovic.courtes@laas.fr \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).