From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA14973; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:28:31 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA15694 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:28:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7DESORM001966 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:28:28 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp197-3.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [203.122.197.3]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i7DESDHY087783; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:58:15 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: AW: [Caml-list] The tag bit From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Christophe Raffalli Cc: Jacques Garrigue , Christoph.Bauer@lms-gmbh.de, caml-list In-Reply-To: <411CBAF6.3010101@univ-savoie.fr> References: <20040813.125329.74721093.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <411CBAF6.3010101@univ-savoie.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1092407293.29139.219.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 14 Aug 2004 00:28:13 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 411CD008.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 raffalli:01 encodings:01 generational:01 9660:01 glebe:01 christophe:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 nsw:01 snail:02 collector:02 collector:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 22:58, Christophe Raffalli wrote: > Does anyone have a comparison between two identical GC except one > should have a tag bit and the other be conservative ? The Boehm collector is quite efficient: if you compare it to hand written encodings such as reference counting for example. The main problem with it is that it has to 'stop the world' whilst it is doing its thing, and so isn't useful for real time applications such as a game where you can easily pay 20% of all CPU for the GC -- but you simply can't freeze up the game for 10 seconds every few minutes. The Ocaml generational collector is likely to be much better at this -- some of the workload is spread over time, and the remaining major collection when needed will also be faster, and can be called manually at appropriate points. A second point is -- Boehm cannot defragment memory. Ocaml can (although the compaction is 'world stop'). So .. i don't think the 'overall CPU use' of the two collector kinds is actually what you need to compare: the real time performance and/or ability to operate with C/C++ code are the likely issues. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners