[concurrency-interest] Garbage First vs a counting collector

Gregg Wonderly gregg at cytetech.com
Thu Mar 26 11:55:30 EDT 2009


Brian S O'Neill wrote:
> How did your collector deal with reference cycles? Was it slow enough to 
> not be a problem, or did the language prohibit cycles from arising?

Practically, we didn't write software using this language which had cycles. This 
language was an automation language (on the 5ESS switch) which tied into the UI 
mechanisms and provide parallel process management (fork->exec tracking) so that 
we could take programs and scripts and stitch together procedures for software 
updates/retrofits etc.  It provided forward and reverse execution sequencing to 
do and undo steps repeatedly to restrict how the switch changed states.

I guess everyone knows how counting can be used to track references?
Every assignment, or pass of a value to a method call, created an explicit 
decrement on the lost reference and an increment on the new reference.  Anytime 
the count went to zero, something was freed, and there was an explicit decrement 
of all references within that 'object' too.  Reference cycles were not handled 
explicitly, so they would have been a problem which I never saw materialize in 
the small software modules that were developed using the language.

For example if you had a cycle (with counts shown) such as

F->A(2)->B(1)->C(1)->A(2)

and you drop the F reference to A, A's count goes to 1, it is no longer globally 
referenced and yet you don't free it because the count doesn't go to zero.

I think this is the issue you are referring to right?

As a bit of history, initially, the language had no objects, only numeric and 
string values and things like pipe and process etc, that all went one way in 
terms of reference.  So, there was never a cycle reference issue.  Only 3 years 
after I wrote first wrote it, did I add objects as an extension of maps.  At 
that time, it became possible for circular references to be created.  We just 
didn't have object structures that complicated to see any issues with that 
happening.

Gregg Wonderly

> Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>> One of the things about concurrent programming that bothers me the 
>> most is latency control.  GC activity can often introduce unwanted 
>> latency by causing arbitrary contention for resources that a thread 
>> may not be able to recognize as contentious.  A long time ago, I 
>> created a language with a counting collector which I found to be very 
>> easy to do on a uniprocessor environment.  With the advent of CAS, it 
>> seems at casual grant pretty straight forward to do a counting 
>> collector on a multi-processor machine.
>>
>> The upcomming introduction of the garbage first collector intrigues me 
>> from the perspective that there is a "ton" of managed resources that 
>> it uses to make itself smart enough to try and accurately estimate and 
>> manage the cost of GC activity.  There is use of CAS, plus space and 
>> time based isolation schemes to try and reduce latency that is 
>> introduced into the application.
>>
>> However, it seems to me that there is going to be a new cost 
>> introduced into every assignment for mutator tracking that might just 
>> be as expensive as a counting collector is.
>>
>> I am not really familiar with the real costs of much of the 
>> concurrency management instructions, can anyone on the list give me 
>> some pointers to more information or some insight into whether the 
>> amount of "tracking" that the garbage first collector will use, is 
>> still cheaper than a CAS on every reference change to a global object?
>>
>> Gregg Wonderly
>> _______________________________________________
>> Concurrency-interest mailing list
>> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
>> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>>
> 
> 



More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list