[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Let's make the GC safe and iterative (Was: Re: bug#30626)
From: |
Ken Raeburn |
Subject: |
Re: Let's make the GC safe and iterative (Was: Re: bug#30626) |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Mar 2018 01:31:56 -0500 |
On Mar 1, 2018, at 18:29, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 03/01/2018 03:22 PM, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>> What do you think?
>
> Thanks, I like the idea. I suggest implementing the naive version first.
> Although the more-elaborate versions saves virtual memory, it's not clear
> that it'd be an overall performance win in the typical case, so my guess is
> that it's better to start simple.
The more-elaborate version looks like it’s more likely to win on locality of
reference as it scans blocks sequentially. That could be significant…
especially if anyone is so unfortunate as to still run Emacs on a system small
enough that has to page out part of the Lisp memory.
I like the second approach a bit better, but either way, getting away from
using the C stack sounds like a big improvement.
Ken
- Let's make the GC safe and iterative (Was: Re: bug#30626), Daniel Colascione, 2018/03/01
- Re: Let's make the GC safe and iterative (Was: Re: bug#30626), Paul Eggert, 2018/03/01
- Re: Let's make the GC safe and iterative (Was: Re: bug#30626),
Ken Raeburn <=
- Re: What improvements would be truly useful?, Stefan Monnier, 2018/03/05
- Re: What improvements would be truly useful?, Rostislav Svoboda, 2018/03/05
- Re: What improvements would be truly useful?, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/03/05
- Re: What improvements would be truly useful?, Daniel Colascione, 2018/03/05
- Re: What improvements would be truly useful?, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/03/05
- Re: What improvements would be truly useful?, Richard Stallman, 2018/03/05
- Re: What improvements would be truly useful?, dancol, 2018/03/05