4 ms·
Ah, but you can pin GC threads to specific cores, and a reference-counting GC also has such non-trivial costs. In practice, however, people in the 90-95% "mains
by pron 6y ago
Ah, but you can pin GC threads to specific cores, and a reference-counting GC also has such non-trivial costs. In practice, however, people in the 90-95% "mainstream" domain that Java targets are very happy with the results. Of course, there are some applications that must incur the costs of not having a GC. In general, though, the main tangible cost of a GC today, for a huge portion of large-scale applications, is neither throughput nor latency by RAM overhead.
- pjmlp 6y agoI also enjoy the low level C++ like tooling that .NET offers, but I am also looking forward to the fruits of Panama and Valhalla in that direction.
- pkolaczk 6y agoPinning doesn't solve the problem of cache L3+ thrashing.
- pron 6y agoIt could if the GCs used non-temporal instructions that bypass the L3. Of course, how much of a problem this is in practice in most applications is something that would need to be measured.