7 ms·

I have a slightly contrary opinion. Systems software is a very large umbrella, and much under that umbrella is not encumbered by a garbage collector whatsoever.

I have a slightly contrary opinion. Systems software is a very large umbrella, and much under that umbrella is not encumbered by a garbage collector whatsoever. (To add insult to injury, the term's definition isn't even broadly agreed upon, similar to the definition of a "high-level language".) Yes, there are some systems applications where a GC can be a hindrance in practice, but these days I'm not even sure it's a majority of systems software. I think what's more important for the systems programmer is (1) the ability to inspect the low-level behavior of functions, like through their disassembly; (2) be reasonably confident how code will compile; and (3) have some dials and levers to control aspects of compiled code and memory usage. All of these things can and are present, not only in some garbage collected languages, but also garbage-collected languages with a dynamic type system! Yes, there are environments so spartan and so precision-oriented that even a language's built-in allocator cannot be used (e.g., malloc), in which case using a GC'd language is going to be an unwinnable fight for control. But if you only need to do precision management of a memory that isn't pervasive in all of your allocation patterns, then using a language like C feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's very rarely "all or nothing" in a modern, garbage-collected language.

no_circuit 5y ago
The article is from a database company, so I'll assume that approximates the scope. My scope for the GC discussion would include other parts that could be considered similar software: cluster-control plane (Kubernetes), other databases, and possibly the first level of API services to implement a service like an internal users/profiles or auth endpoints. The tricky thing is GC works most of the time, but if you are working at scale you really can't predict user behavior, and so all of those GC-tuning parameters that were set six months ago no longer work properly. A good portion of production outages are likely related to cascading failures due to too long GC pauses, and a good portion of developer time is spent testing and tuning GC parameters. It is easier to remove and/or just not allow GC languages at these levels in the first place. On the other hand IMO GC-languages at the frontend level are OK since you'd just need to scale horizontally.
- coder543 5y ago
  Go doesn’t offer a bunch of GC tuning parameters. Really only one parameter, so your concerns about complex GC tuning here seem targeted at some other language like Java. This is a drawback in some cases, since one size never truly fits all, but it dramatically simplifies things for most applications, and the Go GC has been tuned for many years to work well in most places where Go is commonly used. The developers of Go continue to fix shortcomings that are identified. Go’s GC prioritizes very short STWs and predictable latency, instead of total GC throughput, and Go makes GC throughput more manageable by stack allocating as much as it can to reduce GC pressure. Generally speaking, Go is also known for using very little memory compared to Java.
  - astrange 5y ago
    Is go's GC not copying/generational? I think "stack allocation" doesn't really make sense in a generational GC, as everything sort of gets stack allocated. Of course, compile-time lifetime hints might still be useful somehow.
    - coder543 5y ago
      > Is go's GC not copying/generational? Nope, Go does not use a copying or generational GC. Go uses a concurrent mark and sweep GC. Even then, generational GCs are not as cheap as stack allocation.
      - astrange 5y ago
        Stack's just the youngest generation. I can see the difference being that you have to scan a generation but the entire stack can be freed at once, but it still seems like an overly specific term. The general term elsewhere for multiple allocations you can free at the same time is "arenas".
        coder543 5y ago
        From a conceptual point of view, I agree, but... in practice, stacks are incredibly cheap. The entire set of local variables can be allocated with a single bump of the stack pointer upon entry into a function, and they can all be freed with another bump of the stack pointer upon exit. With heap allocations, even with the simplest bump allocator.. you still have to allocate once per object, which can easily be an order of magnitude more work than what you have to do with an equivalent number of stack allocated objects. Your program doesn't magically know where those objects are, so it still also has to pay to stack allocate the pointers to keep track of the heap objects. Then you have the additional pointer-chasing slowing things down and the decreased effectiveness of the local CPU caches due to the additional level of indirection. A contiguous stack frame is a lot more likely to stay entirely within the CPU cache than a bunch of values scattered around the heap. Beyond that, and beyond the additional scanning you already mentioned, in the real world the heap is shared between all threads, which means there will be some amount of contention whenever you have to interact with the heap, although this is amortized some with TLABs (thread-local allocation buffers). You also have to consider the pointer rewriting that a generational GC will have to perform for the survivors of each generation, and that will not be tied strictly to function frames. The GC will run whenever it feels like it, so you may pay the cost of pointer rewriting for objects that are only used until the end of this function, just due to the coincidence of when the GC started working. I think (but could be wrong/outdated) that generational GCs almost all require both read and write barriers that perform some synchronization any time you interact with a heap allocated value, and this slows the program down even more compared to stack objects. (I believe that non-copying GCs don't need as many barriers, and that the barriers are only active during certain GC phases, which is beneficial to Go programs, but again, stack objects don't need any barriers at all, ever.) GCs are really cool, but stack allocated values are always better when they can be used. There's a reason that C# makes developer-defined value types available; they learned from the easily visible problems that Java has wrestled with caused by not allowing developers to define their own value types. Go took it a step further and got rid of developer-defined reference types altogether, so everything is a value type (arguably with the exception of the syntax sugar for the built-in map, slice, channel, and function pointer types), and even values allocated behind a pointer will still be stack allocated if escape analysis proves it won't cause problems.

no_circuit 5y ago

The article is from a database company, so I'll assume that approximates the scope. My scope for the GC discussion would include other parts that could be considered similar software: cluster-control plane (Kubernetes), other databases, and possibly the first level of API services to implement a service like an internal users/profiles or auth endpoints. The tricky thing is GC works most of the time, but if you are working at scale you really can't predict user behavior, and so all of those GC-tuning parameters that were set six months ago no longer work properly. A good portion of production outages are likely related to cascading failures due to too long GC pauses, and a good portion of developer time is spent testing and tuning GC parameters. It is easier to remove and/or just not allow GC languages at these levels in the first place. On the other hand IMO GC-languages at the frontend level are OK since you'd just need to scale horizontally.

coder543 5y ago
Go doesn’t offer a bunch of GC tuning parameters. Really only one parameter, so your concerns about complex GC tuning here seem targeted at some other language like Java. This is a drawback in some cases, since one size never truly fits all, but it dramatically simplifies things for most applications, and the Go GC has been tuned for many years to work well in most places where Go is commonly used. The developers of Go continue to fix shortcomings that are identified. Go’s GC prioritizes very short STWs and predictable latency, instead of total GC throughput, and Go makes GC throughput more manageable by stack allocating as much as it can to reduce GC pressure. Generally speaking, Go is also known for using very little memory compared to Java.
- astrange 5y ago
  Is go's GC not copying/generational? I think "stack allocation" doesn't really make sense in a generational GC, as everything sort of gets stack allocated. Of course, compile-time lifetime hints might still be useful somehow.
  - coder543 5y ago
    > Is go's GC not copying/generational? Nope, Go does not use a copying or generational GC. Go uses a concurrent mark and sweep GC. Even then, generational GCs are not as cheap as stack allocation.
    - astrange 5y ago
      Stack's just the youngest generation. I can see the difference being that you have to scan a generation but the entire stack can be freed at once, but it still seems like an overly specific term. The general term elsewhere for multiple allocations you can free at the same time is "arenas".
      - coder543 5y ago
        From a conceptual point of view, I agree, but... in practice, stacks are incredibly cheap. The entire set of local variables can be allocated with a single bump of the stack pointer upon entry into a function, and they can all be freed with another bump of the stack pointer upon exit. With heap allocations, even with the simplest bump allocator.. you still have to allocate once per object, which can easily be an order of magnitude more work than what you have to do with an equivalent number of stack allocated objects. Your program doesn't magically know where those objects are, so it still also has to pay to stack allocate the pointers to keep track of the heap objects. Then you have the additional pointer-chasing slowing things down and the decreased effectiveness of the local CPU caches due to the additional level of indirection. A contiguous stack frame is a lot more likely to stay entirely within the CPU cache than a bunch of values scattered around the heap. Beyond that, and beyond the additional scanning you already mentioned, in the real world the heap is shared between all threads, which means there will be some amount of contention whenever you have to interact with the heap, although this is amortized some with TLABs (thread-local allocation buffers). You also have to consider the pointer rewriting that a generational GC will have to perform for the survivors of each generation, and that will not be tied strictly to function frames. The GC will run whenever it feels like it, so you may pay the cost of pointer rewriting for objects that are only used until the end of this function, just due to the coincidence of when the GC started working. I think (but could be wrong/outdated) that generational GCs almost all require both read and write barriers that perform some synchronization any time you interact with a heap allocated value, and this slows the program down even more compared to stack objects. (I believe that non-copying GCs don't need as many barriers, and that the barriers are only active during certain GC phases, which is beneficial to Go programs, but again, stack objects don't need any barriers at all, ever.) GCs are really cool, but stack allocated values are always better when they can be used. There's a reason that C# makes developer-defined value types available; they learned from the easily visible problems that Java has wrestled with caused by not allowing developers to define their own value types. Go took it a step further and got rid of developer-defined reference types altogether, so everything is a value type (arguably with the exception of the syntax sugar for the built-in map, slice, channel, and function pointer types), and even values allocated behind a pointer will still be stack allocated if escape analysis proves it won't cause problems.