On 02/02/2013 10:48 PM, Chris Cain wrote: > Okay, I've got a question for you Ali... why is it that sometimes as > Elements increased, there were a _drop_ of allocations? > > So, these in particular: > > On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 06:02:04 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: >> Elements: 65536, Allocations: 9, Moved: 1012 >> Elements: 131072, Allocations: 10, Moved: 28655 >> [[ Elements: 262144, Allocations: 9, Moved: 1012 ]] >> Elements: 524288, Allocations: 12, Moved: 435173 >> Elements: 1048576, Allocations: 13, Moved: 1431520 >> [[ Elements: 2097152, Allocations: 11, Moved: 1993706 ]] >> Elements: 4194304, Allocations: 13, Moved: 5877728 >> Elements: 8388608, Allocations: 14, Moved: 14838747 >> [[ Elements: 16777216, Allocations: 12, Moved: 30438373 ]] >> Elements: 33554432, Allocations: 12, Moved: 59881445 >> Elements: 67108864, Allocations: 12, Moved: 109627365 > > That's quite an oddity to me, especially looking at the code.
We must be seeing the effects of how the GC works. Note that each line is printed for a different slice 's'. My guess is that the GC runs a collection right before the observed drop and the next array gets lucky.
Ali
