harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From liaoyin <ustcl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [gc]about
Date Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:59:04 GMT
ok,Thanks for your help.

2008/4/16, Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com>:
>
> Lyon, good question. :)
>
> You are right. They should be similar, and have the same function in
> sspace. The gc_try_schedule_collection is for concurrent GC. You can
> ignore it if you don't care about concurrent generational GC. It is
> not in sspace because the generational concurrent GC is not finished
> yet for sspace.
>
> Thanks,
> xiaofeng
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:58 PM, lyon <ustcliao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > hi all:
> >  I am reading the gc algorithm that are trace_forward and semi_space.
> >
> >  I found that the function fspace_alloc(unsigned size, Allocator
> >  *allocator) is *similar* whih the function sspace_alloc(unsigned size,
> >  Allocator *allocator).But the fspace_alloc call the function
> >  gc_try_schedule_collection(allocator->gc, GC_CAUSE_NIL), sspace_alloc
> do
> >  not.
> >  According to reading the src, * *I think that the *status* of the two
> >  allocation algorithms is equal. if fspace_alloc needs to call
> >  *gc_try_schedule_collection* ,then sspace_alloc should call the
> >  function.But the fact is not that.
> >  the function *gc_try_schedule_collection *is difficult to understand. I
> >  am confused.So the function
> >  of the *gc_try_schedule_collection *is what.why are the allocations
> >  different?
> >  thanks
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message