On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:25:58 +0900, Robert Jacques <sandf...@jhu.edu>
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:19:09 -0400, Masahiro Nakagawa
<repeate...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:57:47 +0900, Trass3r <u...@known.com> wrote:
I am interested in Concurrent GC.
But, I have a question about CDGC.
AFAIK, other language runtimes use thread for concurrent processing.
Why use fork()? What is the merit of fork() approach?
I don't know.
On Windows you can't use fork anyway and we have to figure out an
alternative way.
Maybe he explains it in his thesis, but it's only available in Spanish:
http://www.llucax.com.ar/proj/dgc/index.html
Thanks for the link!
But, I didn't read Spanish...
snapshot GC
I have heard this by "A Real-Time Garbage Collection for Java using
Snapshot Algorithm".
I understand a basic mechanism(above article uses a thread instead of
fork()).
Hmm... I want to see a comparison of fork() and thread.
There are two other alternative, modern GCs that I know of which fit
system programming languages like D. One used a kernel patch to trap
hardware writes efficiently, allowing one to bolt a traditional
concurrent GC onto a system's language. Which, while cool, isn't
practical until OS APIs support it out of the box. The other is
thread-local GCs, which according to Apple, have roughly equivalent
performance to existing concurrent GCs. Given shared and immutable,
thread-local GC's make a lot of sense for D and can be combined with
other concurrent options should they be/become available.
I didn't know the former. Thanks for the information.
Latter approach is similar to Erlang.
Erlang provides GC per-process and I like this approach.
Is Thread-local GC in D realistic?
D allows global mutable state...
