3 ms·
1) Java has the very best GCs out of anything to the point that I very much question anyone claiming to suffer from GC pauses on most workloads. Do you really h
by kaba0 4y ago
1) Java has the very best GCs out of anything to the point that I very much question anyone claiming to suffer from GC pauses on most workloads. Do you really have an application which suffers from that or is that just the usual “GC bad” mantra? Your average C program may spend just as much time trying to malloc a given block in its fragmented heap than that.
2) Why exactly? 3) that’s why you have a GC. But if I really want to understand what you mean (I assume you meant non-memory resources not being explicitly closed?), try-with-resources and cleaners solve the problem quite well.
4) Does it really matter if the last 2 decades were spent on optimizing allocation to the point where it is literally a pointer bump and like 3 basic, thread-local instructions? Deallocation can be amortized to be practically zero cost (moving GC), at RAM’s expense. Where it really really matters though, you could always do ByteBuffers, the new MemorySegment’s or just straight sun.misc.Unsafe pointer arithmetics. That string allocation will be escape analyzed and be stack allocated either way.
I don’t even know what do you mean by static allocation. You mean like in embedded, having fix sized arrays and exploding when the user enters a 32+1 letter text? I really don’t miss that. 6) value classes are coming and solving the issue. Though it begs the question, what’s the size of your average list? Also, how come it doesn’t matter for all the linked lists used extensively in C? Also, see point 4. 7) I don’t get what you mean here, do you mean not doing atomic instructions, because java don’t have out-of-thin-air values? There are rare programs that can get away with that, but I think Java has quite a great toolkit for synchronization primitives to build everything (most concurrency books use it for a reason).
- bullen 4y agoYes, I mean having limits on everything! Every input has a max value. Players, messages count, message length, weapons they can hold etc. You can add more by recompiling, you should reuse them (for size but also to keep data contiguous) even if that is challenging under multicore utilization and you can add MUUUUUCH more than the CPU can handle to compute anyway so this is not an issue. The first and last bottleneck of computers is and will always be RAM. Both speed, memory size and energy. A 256GB RAM stick uses 80W!!!! Latency is increasing since DDR3 (2007) and we have had caches to accommodate for slow RAM since 386 (1985) (3 always seems to be the last version, HL3 confirmed? >.<): You need to cache align everything perfectly: 1) all data has to be in an array (or vector which is a managed array but i digress) 2) you need your types to be atomic so multiple cores can write to them at the same time without segmentation fault (int/float). 3) You need your groups/objects/structs to perfectly fill (padded) 64 bytes. Because then multiple cores cannot invalidate each others cache unless they are writing to the same struct. So SoA vs. AoS never was an argument! AoS where structures are exactly 64 bytes is the only thing all programmers must do for eternity! This is the law of both X86 and ARM. So an array of float Mat4x4 is perfect and I suspect that is where the 64 bytes came from. But here is another struct just as an example: struct Node { int mesh, skin; Vec3 spot, pace; Quat look, spin; };
- kaba0 4y agoBut things don’t fit into 64 bits all the time, and then you get tearing. This is observable and now you have to pay for “proper” synchronization. Also, apple’s m1’s reason for speed is pretty much bigger cache, so I don’t think it’s a good choice to go down this road. Most applications have plenty of objects all around that are rarely used and are perfectly fine with being managed by the GC as is, and a tiny performance critical core where you might have to care a tiny bit about what gets allocated. This segment can be optimized other ways as well, without hurting the maintainability, speed of progress etc of the rest of the codebase.
- bullen 4y ago64 bytes, 512 bits. Cachelines are 64 bytes on all modern hardware. They will probably never change this value ever. Everything fits into 64 bytes if you make the effort. And if it doesn't you have to use two Arrays of 64 byte Structures and pad the last. This is non negotiable and I'm completely baffled nobody has mentioned this yet. I call this law: Ao64bS (did I invent my first law?) :D
- kaba0 4y agoIt may be a language barrier thingy, but then we are talking about different things. Also, that is architecture dependent.