On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> What precisely would be the "deleted" count? If it counts deallocations,
>>> is it relevant what generation the deallocated object was from?
>>> If so, how do you determine the generation? If not, wouldn't
>>>
>>>
>> What precisely would be the "deleted" count? If it counts deallocations,
>> is it relevant what generation the deallocated object was from?
>> If so, how do you determine the generation? If not, wouldn't
>>
>> while 1:
>> x=[]
>>
>> trigger a full garbage collection fairly quickly?
>
> "delet
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:59 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Looks about equivalent, but "survivors" may mean two different things
>> depending on if it removes deleted survivors or not. Splitting that
>> up, we get this form:
>>
>> old <= survivors * 2.0 + deleted * 1.0
>
> W
> Looks about equivalent, but "survivors" may mean two different things
> depending on if it removes deleted survivors or not. Splitting that
> up, we get this form:
>
> old <= survivors * 2.0 + deleted * 1.0
What precisely would be the "deleted" count? If it counts deallocations,
is it relevant
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The effect is similar for the "batch allocation" case, but opposite
>> for the "long-running program" case.
>
> I don't understand. Where is the difference?
>
>> My proposal can be made equivalent to Martin's proposal
> The effect is similar for the "batch allocation" case, but opposite
> for the "long-running program" case.
I don't understand. Where is the difference?
> My proposal can be made equivalent to Martin's proposal by removing
> all of its pending traces when an untraced object is deleted. We
> cou
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Olsen gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> We need two counters: one is the total number of traceable objects
>> (those we would inspect if we did a full collection) and a number of
>> "pending" trace operations. Every time an
> It sounds rather similar to Martin's proposal, except with different
> coefficients and slightly different definitions (but the "total number
> of traceable objects" should be roughly equal to the number of objects
> in the oldest generation, and the "number of pending trace operations"
> roughly
Adam Olsen gmail.com> writes:
>
> We need two counters: one is the total number of traceable objects
> (those we would inspect if we did a full collection) and a number of
> "pending" trace operations. Every time an object is moved into the
> last generation, we increase "pending" by two - once
We need two counters: one is the total number of traceable objects
(those we would inspect if we did a full collection) and a number of
"pending" trace operations. Every time an object is moved into the
last generation, we increase "pending" by two - once for itself and
once for an older object.
10 matches
Mail list logo
