Ivan Volosyuk wrote: > We will get rid of false sharing. That's true. But it still be quite > expensive to write those '1' values, because of ping-ponging of the > cache line between processors. I see only one solution to this: use > separate mark bits in vtable per GC thread which should reside in > different cache lines and different from that word containing gcmap > pointer.
Thinking about it... Doesn't the "object vtable" suffer from the same problem, anyway? It's probably worse, as it will be quite unfeasible to try to locate them in the "right" cache lines! Yep, another point against object-vtables... Etienne -- Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/ SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/ SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
