Related articles |
---|
GC question phr-2007@nightsong.com (Paul Rubin) (2007-07-27) |
Re: GC question etxuwig@cbe.ericsson.se (Ulf Wiger) (2007-07-27) |
Re: GC question gene.ressler@gmail.com (Gene) (2007-07-28) |
Re: GC question bear@sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) (2007-07-28) |
Re: GC question @iecc.com <phr-2007@nightsong.com (Paul@iecc.com, Rubin) (2007-07-30) |
Re: GC question torbenm@app-2.diku.dk (2007-08-13) |
From: | Paul Rubin <phr-2007@nightsong.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers,comp.lang.functional |
Date: | 27 Jul 2007 03:34:55 -0700 |
Organization: | Nightsong/Fort GNOX |
Keywords: | GC, performance, question |
Posted-Date: | 27 Jul 2007 09:29:57 EDT |
Suppose you build a big list of cons cells, say a billion of them
(you're on a large machine). This is in a runtime with traditional
marking or copying gc, no generation scavenging or region inference or
anything like that. The collector runs every N bytes of allocation
for some fixed N. Yes I know that's a dumb way to write an allocator
for a big-system implementation but it's fairly common for small ones.
It seems to me that the running time to allocate N cells is O(N**2)
because you run the collector O(N) times during the allocation, and
each collection costs O(N) on average.
I never realized this before. Is it a well-known phenemonon? Is the
main answer something like generation scavenging?
This relates to a real situation that came up on comp.lang.python
yesterday.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.