4 ms·
Quantifying the Performance of Garbage Collection (2005) [pdf]
- necubi 8y agoThis is from 2005. The state of the art in GC has advanced substantially since then.
- nixpulvis 8y agoAs has the state of the art in explicit memory management, though I'm quite sure the ideas weren't completely unheard of at the time of this writing.
- kirkules 8y agoDo you have any quick references for someone not privy to this state of the art but who has experience reading academic papers and reading code and documentation?
- nixpulvis 8y agoIf you want to dive into some dense research, I recommend learning about afine type systems. Maybe play with Rust a bit too.
- aasasd 8y agoAfaict that's the paper that says code using GC needs five times as much memory to have performance comparable to manual management. What's the figure these days?
- monocasa 8y agoWhat has exceeded Azul's pauseless GC which was released in 2005?
- the8472 8y agoThey do not even consider C4 or region-based collectors in that paper. In fact they only do single-threaded execution. As for the state of the art: low-pause/pauseless collectors (G1 and shenandoah) have been gaining the ability to reduce footprint based on allocation pressure, i.e. the heap size is load-following which can be important in cloud environments with usage-based billing.
- monocasa 8y agoI'm not talking about their paper, I'm talking about their execution. That absolutely was multithreaded for instance; it was designed for a custom chip that allowed 768 cores in a system in 2005.
- ignoramous 8y agoAny recent references you can link to, pls?