mail-archives/mono-gc-list/2003-August/000014.html

97 строки
3.1 KiB
HTML

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mono-gc-list] My arguments
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:fdiaz%40igalia.com">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="000016.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="000015.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mono-gc-list] My arguments
</H1>
<B>Fernando Diaz
</B>
<A HREF="mailto:fdiaz%40igalia.com"
TITLE="[Mono-gc-list] My arguments">fdiaz@igalia.com
</A><BR>
<I>12 Aug 2003 13:21:33 +0200</I>
<P><UL>
<LI> Previous message: <A HREF="000016.html">[Mono-gc-list] Copying or Mark-Compact collector?
</A></li>
<LI> Next message: <A HREF="000015.html">[Mono-gc-list] My arguments
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#14">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#14">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#14">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#14">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>In the other mail i have suggested two algorithms for a future garbage
collector for Mono:
1) Mark-Compact
2) Copying Collection
I have been made an study about the different techniques for a garbage
collector for a month.=20
The classical algorithms are:
1) Mark-Sweep
2) Mark-Compact
3) Reference Counting
4) Copying Collection
5) Non-Copying Collection.
I think that Mono needs a collector that make the allocation process the
simpliest it could be, then i refused the Mark-Sweep and Non-Copying
Collection, because they have the problem of fragmentation what guide us
to a complex allocator.
The reference counting algorithm have the problem that it can clean
objects with cyclic references between them, and it has a beavy
algorithm.
With Mark-Compact we have a collector that provides us a fast and simply
allocation routine, and a good locality for cach=E9 and virtual memory.
The same as Mark-Compact ocurrs in Copying Collection. The problem with
them is that we need to rebuild the references to the objects after a
collection, because the objects will me moved from their original
location into the heap.
A generational adaptation of these algorithms would be good, it would
make them more efficient. But an incremental adaptation would make them
more complex and it would give them a few advantages.
What do you think about?.
Regards.
--=20
Fernando Diaz &lt;<A HREF="mailto:fdiaz@igalia.com">fdiaz@igalia.com</A>&gt;
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI> Previous message: <A HREF="000016.html">[Mono-gc-list] Copying or Mark-Compact collector?
</A></li>
<LI> Next message: <A HREF="000015.html">[Mono-gc-list] My arguments
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#14">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#14">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#14">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#14">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
</body></html>