[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:36:04 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
> Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
>> Off the top of my head: incorrect indentation, missing spaces around
>> brackets, and more importantly comments (see (standards.info)Comments).
>
> The code I went through should not have that; please point me to locations
> where things are broken so I can fix them.
E.g., from commit:
+/*
+ Classic MIT Hack, see e.g. http://www.tekpool.com/?cat=9
+ */
+int scm_i_uint_bit_count(unsigned int u)
(BTW, it'd make sense to use Gnulib's `count-one-bits' module, which is
able to use GCC's `__builtin_popcount ()'.)
+/*
+ Amount of cells marked in this cell, measured in 1-cells.
+ */
+int
+scm_i_card_marked_count (scm_t_cell *card, int span)
+ while (bvec < bvec_end) {
+ count += scm_i_uint_bit_count(*bvec);
+ bvec ++;
+ }
Other than that, the new `gc-segment-table.c' does look nice to the
eye. ;-)
>>> See below - note that the old .scm file was pretty much broken, as it
>>> was using gc-live-object-stats which is only accurate just after the
>>> mark phase.
>>
>> Hmm, `gc-live-object-stats' may return information from the previous
>> cycle, but it shouldn't be *that* accurate, should it?
Sorry, that should have read "that inaccurate"...
> No; the current implementation uses a similar scheme to
> gc-live-object-stats (counting in the bitvector) to determine the live
> object count. There is now no way that it can ever be larger than the
> total heap size.
OK.
> I also changed the code to not look at the penultimate GC stats, since
> I couldn't invent a scenario where that would help, and IMO it only
> confuses things. This may have been a remnant of the pre-lazy sweep
> code.
Well, it's actually hard to "invent" things in that area without any
measurement to back them up.
> There was some confusion about cells vs. double cells vs. bytes, but I
> think was mostly in my head and perhaps in your stress test.
>
> If you really want to know, use git bisect.
I would have expected you to use such an approach when you volunteered
to fix things.
> A likely candidate is the patch from you that I applied. In
> particular,
> 4c7016dc06525c7910ce6c99d97eb9c52c6b43e4
Well, that's a good candidate since it's the last significant change
that was done to the GC on `master'. However, Kevin's original post
compared 1.8 (which doesn't have this commit) to 1.6.
> + seg->freelist->collected += collected * seg->span;
>
> looks fishy as this code is called multiple times for a given
> card.
This very line was already there before the patch (see the diff).
> The scm_t_sweep_statistics were sometimes passed into the sweep
> function and sometimes not; I couldn't work out what the global
> variables were supposed to mean exactly, and consequently, if their
> updates were correct. The reason I am confident about the statistics
> now is the assert()s I added to scm_i_gc(), which compare exactly mark
> bit counts, the sweep statistics and freelist statistics. Some of the
> changes I did were to make these numbers match up exactly.
OK, let's hope for the best. ;-)
> I'd be interested in seeing benchmarks between Guile and PLT after my
> cleanup. For a lot of benchmarks, GC time is an important factor, and
> it might be that we can now beat PLT (they use BGC).
Hmm, that seems unlikely to me, but that'd be good news.
>
> BTW, I'm attaching a new plot of the stress test, now up to iteration
> 10000 (the large allocation). Interestingly, the large allocation is
> cleaned up only once - (on iteration 1000), and remains 'live' after
> that, so there may still be some bugs lurking.
Eh, how fun.
> char-sets are smobs and use single cells, AFAICT.
Right (but `SCM_NEWSMOB{2,3} ()' use double cells, though).
Thanks,
Ludo'.
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, (continued)
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/15
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/15
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/17
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/18
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/18
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/18
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/18
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/19
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/19
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/19
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE,
Ludovic Courtès <=
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/21
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/21
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/22
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/21
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/22
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/18
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/18
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/18
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/08/19
- Re: GUILE_MAX_HEAP_SIZE, Ludovic Courtès, 2008/08/18