Not from a real world application, no. If you run the program below with
And now for the program below...
Regards,
Martin
import gc,sys,time
gc.set_debug(gc.DEBUG_STATS)
t=time.time()
l = []
l.append(l)
for i in range(10):
l.append([])
del l
print >>sys.stderr,"Done looping: final gen
>> Both. Let (a,b,c) equal gc.get_threshold(), then a full gc happens
>> after a*b*c object allocations (roughly; early object deallocations
>> are deducted from that number). Currently, this product is 7.
>
> I see. 70k is a large number. Do you have some real world experience how
> often a a
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Both. Let (a,b,c) equal gc.get_threshold(), then a full gc happens
> after a*b*c object allocations (roughly; early object deallocations
> are deducted from that number). Currently, this product is 7.
I see. 70k is a large number. Do you have some real world experience
Christian Heimes wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> I wonder whether such a thing should run as a side effect of a full
>> garbage collection, also. GC has a chance to free up arenas for good,
>> and allocated-but-unused blocks on arenas prevent Python from returning
>> them to the OS.
>
> Under
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I wonder whether such a thing should run as a side effect of a full
> garbage collection, also. GC has a chance to free up arenas for good,
> and allocated-but-unused blocks on arenas prevent Python from returning
> them to the OS.
Under which condition does a full garbag
> My new
> sys._compact_freelists() deallocates the float and int blocks which do
> not contain a referenced object.
I wonder whether such a thing should run as a side effect of a full
garbage collection, also. GC has a chance to free up arenas for good,
and allocated-but-unused blocks on arenas
Brett Cannon wrote:
> Well, I am a little leery of another free list. I personally don't
> love the fact that there are various caches and free lists laying
> about in the code without a central place to turn them off or clear
> them (or at least list them in a comment somewhere). And the problem
>
On Feb 5, 2008 2:30 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think Christian means single digit integers. But I thought we
> > already did this for positive numbers? So is the proposal to also
> > cover negative numbers?
>
> We don't have a free list, but a cache for them, and only fo
> I think Christian means single digit integers. But I thought we
> already did this for positive numbers? So is the proposal to also
> cover negative numbers?
We don't have a free list, but a cache for them, and only for numbers
between -5 and +256. Christian proposes a freelist, similar to the
s
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I'm puzzled as to how you arrive at this upper bound. You can surely
> have more than 2**16 integer objects whose abs values are all
> below 2**15, no?
Oh ... I see. You are right and I did a mistake by confusing the amount
of objects with the range. I'd better add an uppe
> Since the free list is limited to small longs, it will consume less than
> 1,5 MB on a 64bit OS and less than 900kb on a 32bit OS in a worst case
> scenario (2 * (1<<15) ~ 65k objects with a size of 14 / 22 byte each).
I'm puzzled as to how you arrive at this upper bound. You can surely
have mor
Brett Cannon wrote:
> I think Christian means single digit integers. But I thought we
> already did this for positive numbers? So is the proposal to also
> cover negative numbers?
Ne, we don't use a free list for longs. In the 2.x series floats and
ints are allocated in blocks of 1000 objects. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "size of 1 or -1". Do you mean you only keep
> the numbers 1 and -1 on the free list? It's not obvious to me what a size
> of -1 is. Do you mean positive and negative numbers which fit in one byte
> or one long word?
I should have explain
On Feb 5, 2008 12:13 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Christian> I've implemented a free list for small long objects with a
> Christian> size of 1 or -1.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "size of 1 or -1". Do you mean you only keep
> the numbers 1 and -1 on the free list? It's not obv
Christian> I've implemented a free list for small long objects with a
Christian> size of 1 or -1.
I'm not sure what you mean by "size of 1 or -1". Do you mean you only keep
the numbers 1 and -1 on the free list? It's not obvious to me what a size
of -1 is. Do you mean positive and nega
I've implemented a free list for small long objects with a size of 1 or
-1. I wanted to test how large the malloc overhead is. The result was
astonishing. The free list quadrupled the speed of a simple test:
$ ./python -m timeit "for i in range(100): list(range(1000))"
Without patch:
10 loops, be
16 matches
Mail list logo
