On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:48:31 -0400, Robert Jacques <sandf...@jhu.edu>
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:05:42 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'd think you only want to clear the entries affected by the collection.
If it was free and simple to only clear the affected entries, sure. But
doing so requires (very heavy?) modification of the GC in order to track
and check changes.
Why? All you have to do is check whether a block is referenced in the LRU
while freeing the block. I don't even think it would be that performance
critical. Using my vastly novice assumptions about how the GC collection
cycle works:
step 1, mark all blocks that are not referenced by any roots.
step 2, check which blocks are referenced by the LRU, if they are, then
remove them from the LRU.
step 3, recycle free blocks.
But this requires the LRU to be part of the GC.
I think we're already in that boat. If the LRU isn't attached to the GC,
then ~= becomes a locking operation even if the GC is thread-local, which
makes no sense.
-Steve
