On Nov 29, 2010, at 00:34 , Jon Harrop wrote: > I see. Yes, that sounds like a great idea. How well does Immix cope with > high allocation rates of short-lived objects? Been a while since I read the > Immix paper...
In theory this should be handled more efficiently compared to a generational collector (given an appropriate evacuation heuristic), since there is less copying and short-lived objects tend to reuse the "hot" memory of objects that died previously (similar to the minor heap now), while survivers benefit from better compaction (without the need for a seperate mark-compact phase as implemented in the current major GC). The timings for Java are impressive, but the allocation rates in Java tend to be different from those typically found in functional programs. There was also a GSoC project to implement Immix for GHC [1], but they seem to have used Immix in a generational setting, with mixed results (my knowledge of the GHC GC is limited). > Cheers, > Jon. greets, Benedikt [1] http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Storage/GC/Immix _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
