harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] finalizer design questions
Date Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:09:32 GMT

On Dec 28, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Rana Dasgupta wrote:

> On 12/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Question - why would this be part of the GC system, rather than a VM
>> >facility that the GC uses?
>
>
> It is a VM faciity, but the only consumer is the GC. So it doesn't  
> matter
> where the code lives.

really?  We're claiming that we do pluggable GC, so I do think it  
matters.  Also, doesn't this tie all sorts of user-thread priority  
management and balancing issues into the GC codebase?

>
> Finalization is hardly ever used intensively by real apps, as far  
> as I know,

agreed

> except to release unmanaged resources that can't wait for process  
> teardown.

I doubt people even do that.

> We may be overthinking the design. I don't see a problem with  
> Weldon's per
> cpu idea( though I don't know if one can assume that the JVM can  
> control
> thread scheduling, it depends on how the JVM is hosted ). I think  
> that it is
> OK to fail with out of memory for a badly written app. As mentioned
> elsewhere, I think, I would suggest waiting for a real problem to  
> surface
> with an app or a benchmark we care about before trying to come up  
> with the
> design that will solve it.

Well, we need a finalizer.  I agree that we're overthinking this a  
bit, but I'd like to understand why anyone thinks this belongs in the  
GC - we keep claiming to do a modular VM, yet then do things like  
this... :)

geir



Mime
View raw message