From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B4CBBAF for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:48:25 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,241,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="80750004" Received: from 250-120.msr-inria.inria.fr (HELO [10.0.1.2]) ([193.55.250.120]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 23 Nov 2010 10:48:25 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Optimizing garbage collection From: Damien Doligez In-Reply-To: <1832704169.1010021.1290451094930.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:48:25 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <81B1F99F-1875-4FFE-B01A-4D0A5EE50463@inria.fr> References: <1832704169.1010021.1290451094930.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr> To: OCaml mailing list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 doligez:01 doligez:01 garbage:01 garbage:01 wrote:01 heap:01 heap:01 caml-list:01 minor:01 minor:01 optimizing:03 size:95 size:95 On 2010-11-22, at 19:38, John Carr wrote: > I don't understand "smooth". Minor heap size should be based on the > rate of garbage generation relative to allocation to balance cache > misses with GC cost. The ratio may be small or large independent of > whether it varies during the program. What I meant is that, if the allocation rate of the program is infinitely regular and you don't get any threshold effects, the running time decreases as the minor heap size increases, and it's hard to tell when you should stop increasing it. For benchmarks the best choice is probably the physical memory size, but you certainly don't want your real programs to do that. -- Damien