"Robert Jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:48:55 -0400, Craig Black <[email protected]> wrote:

bearophile Wrote:

Weed:
> I want to offer the dialect of the language D2.0, suitable for use
where
> are now used C/C++. Main goal of this is making language like D, but
> corresponding "zero-overhead principle" like C++:
>...
> The code on this language almost as dangerous as a code on C++ - it
is a
> necessary cost for increasing performance.

No, thanks...

And regarding performance, eventually it will come a lot from a good usage of multiprocessing, that in real-world programs may need pure functions and immutable data. That D2 has already, while C++ is less lucky.

Bye,
bearophile

Multiprocessing can only improve performance for tasks that can run in parallel. So far, every attempt to do this with GC (that I know of) has ended up slower, not faster. Bottom line, if GC is the bottleneck, more CPU's won't help.

For applications where GC performance is unacceptable, we either need a radically new way to do GC faster, rely less on the GC, or drop GC altogether.

However, in D, we can't get rid of the GC altogether, since the compiler relies on it. But we can use explicit memory management where it makes sense to do so.

-Craig

*Sigh*, you do know people run cluster & multi-threaded Java apps all the time right? I'd recommend reading about concurrent GCs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_collection_(computer_science)#Stop-the-world_vs._incremental_vs._concurrent. By the way, traditional malloc has rather horrible multi-threaded performance as 1) it creates lots of kernel calls and 2) requires a global lock on access. Yes, there are several alternatives available now, but the same techniques work for enabling multi-threaded GCs. D's shared/local model should support thread local heaps, which would improve all of the above.

I admit to knowing nothing about clusters, so my point does not apply to them. Also note that I didn't say GC was not useful. I said GC can be a bottleneck. If it is a bottleneck (on a single computer), throwing more CPU's at it doesn't help. Why? The big performance problem with GC is with large applications that allocate a lot of memory. In these apps, modern GC's are constantly causing page faults because they are touching too much memory.

I look forward to the day where all the GC problems are solved, and I believe it will come. It would be really nice to have a faster GC in D. However, I don't see how each processor working on a separate heap will solve the problem of the GC causing page faults. But maybe I missed something.

BTW, I don't use traditional malloc. I use nedmalloc and the performance is quite good.

-Craig

Reply via email to