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 mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8065EBBAF for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:10:49 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,236,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="89096417" Received: from macadam.inria.fr ([128.93.8.130]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 22 Nov 2010 16:10:49 +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: <577267187.967802.1290367612809.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:10:49 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4CE68FAB.6020102@elehack.net> <577267187.967802.1290367612809.JavaMail.root@zmbs1.inria.fr> To: OCaml mailing list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 eray:01 ozkural:01 uniformly:01 26,:98 doligez:01 doligez:01 garbage:01 wrote:01 heap:01 heap:01 caml-list:01 minor:01 minor:01 On 2010-11-21, at 20:26, Eray Ozkural wrote: > I've been thinking whether some kind of doubling strategy would work = for the minor heap size. What do you think? Sounds like an interesting idea, but what heuristic would you use? When everything is smooth, the running time decreases something like exponentially with the minor heap size, so you'd always want to increase the size. How do you tell when to stop? And then, if the program is not behaving uniformly, when do you decide to reduce the size? -- Damien