Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms?

"BGB / cr88192" <cr88192@hotmail.com>
Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:22:21 -0700

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2009-07-14)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2009-07-15)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? lerno@dragonascendant.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Christoffer_Lern=F6?=) (2009-07-14)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? lerno@dragonascendant.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Christoffer_Lern=F6?=) (2009-07-15)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? torbenm@pc-003.diku.dk (2009-07-15)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2009-07-15)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2009-07-15)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2009-07-15)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2009-07-15)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? gene.ressler@gmail.com (Gene) (2009-07-15)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? torbenm@pc-003.diku.dk (2009-07-16)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? bartc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2009-07-16)
Re: Best Ref-counting algorithms? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2009-07-16)
[19 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "BGB / cr88192" <cr88192@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:22:21 -0700
Organization: albasani.net
References: 09-07-018 09-07-032
Keywords: GC
Posted-Date: 15 Jul 2009 19:25:06 EDT

"Torben "Fgidius" Mogensen" <torbenm@pc-003.diku.dk> wrote in message
> Christoffer Lernv <lerno@dragonascendant.com> writes:
>
>> If one would like to implement a fast GC using refcounting, should I
>> implement something like in those papers, or are there better
>> algorithms out there?
>
> If you want to implement a fast GC, you should not use refcounting. The
> main problem with refcounting is that an assignment to a pointer
> variable (which would otherwise just be a register-to-register transfer)
> requires two memory reads, two memory writes and a conditional jump, so
> it stresses the memory system far more than most other GC algorithms.


I have some experience in compiling for this cases, and there are
special-case optimizations by which large numbers of reference-count
adjustments can be eliminated.


similarly, most code is not likely performance-bound by how quickly it can
assign pointers...




> Refcounts should, IMO, only be used in the following circumstances:
>
> - Operations on heap pointers are very rare, so even a slow GC doesn't
> matter in the overall picture.
>
> - You need hard real-time guarantees.
>
> - The heap is shared between processes/processors with no central
> control.
>
> So refcounts are fine for such things as shared libraries (you don't
> very often add or delete references to these), but for a functional or
> OO language where you have many small heap structures with short
> lifetimes, it will give massive overhead.
>


you mean vs filling the heap with garbage and waiting for a GC cycle?...


IME, GC+refcounts, in practice, gives far better net performance than GC by
itself (mostly as it mostly eliminates a much bigger cost: the whole GC
process), and has the advantage of avoiding awkward and annoying pauses
typically caused by a GC (these are not just for "hard real-time"
requirements, as these delays can be very noticable and annoying even in
soft real-time apps, where the GC may run and momentarily effect the "flow"
of the whole system...).




the main cost of ref-counting is actually that of writing code to use it
(absent explicit compiler support), and not any such conceptual performance
cost...


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.