3 ms·
It is hard to have a discussion about GC's in the super abstract because object pools are better than GC's and even malloc. Without additional details about wha
by Guvante 11y ago
It is hard to have a discussion about GC's in the super abstract because object pools are better than GC's and even malloc. Without additional details about what the implementation will look like it is impossible to know the best memory allocation mechanism is.
I was just pointing out that most GC's that are general purpose have 2-3 ms pauses for collection which is a no-go for soft-realtime systems. I did not say that GC's are incompatible with soft-realtime systems.
- pron 11y ago> because object pools are better than GC's Object pools and GCs do different things, and you can have object pools in both GCed environments as in manually-managed ones, and they'd work equally the same. But note that you need a very, very good (and far from trivial) object pool to beat a good GC in multithreaded environments. > I was just pointing out that most GC's that are general purpose have 2-3 ms pauses for collection which is a no-go for soft-realtime systems. Well, most free ones. If you're writing a soft-realtime system with stricter latency requirements you'll either work harder to avoid the GC or pay for a low-latency one.