Re[2]: [Gc] Re: [bigloo] Performance evaluation

Ivan Maidanski ivmai at mail.ru
Wed Aug 11 22:35:41 PDT 2010


Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:14:50 +0000 "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm at hp.com>:

> There are two things that worry me about this:
> 
> 1) The live data size seems to have increased.
> 
> 2) It seems to be collecting earlier, in spite of the larger heap.
> 
> You're using the collector without threads or incremental GC, right?

The better question is: what are the options passed to compiler?

Also, it would be better if you replace gc72a4 with the recent CVS snapshot.

> 
> How is the live size computed?
> 
> Hans
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gc-bounces at linux.hpl.hp.com [mailto:gc-bounces at linux.hpl.hp.com]
> > On Behalf Of Manuel.Serrano at sophia.inria.fr
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 2:25 AM
> > To: gc
> > Cc: Bigloo at sophia.inria.fr
> > Subject: [Gc] Re: [bigloo] Performance evaluation
> > 
> > Hi Hans,
> > 
> > I have started studying the impact of the GC on the overall Bigloo
> > performance.  I'm thus comparing the very same version of the compiler
> > (bigloo3.4b) with two version of the GC, namely 7.1 and 7.2alpha4. The
> > most significant performance difference has been found for the traverse
> > Benchmark whose source code is attached here:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gc mailing list
> Gc at linux.hpl.hp.com
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/gc/



More information about the Gc mailing list