On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:15 PM, lyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi, Xiao-Feng Li > > In your blog article "[Harmony GC Internal] Mark bit design" , > you write that "They might not know each other, and continue to scan the > slots of the marked object." > (The third paragraph). If they continue to scan the slots of the marked > object, they would push the same > p_ref into the collector tracestack.Is this the redundant work? Will > this situation cause to be wrong?
It's redundant, but not wrong. In my experience, the redundancy is negligible. > And, according to some details with partial-forward ,you ues the AGE_BIT > to indicate the objects are > uncopied objects. > I find out another method. the old copy of a forwarded object has > FORWARD_BIT set. The those live > object left uncopied was also set FORWARD_BIT(The original method is > that uncopied obj was set MARK_BIT ) > But The those live object left uncopied was not forwarded to mos > really,They still keep the original place. > The Mark_bit of the remained objs will be not set. Then the bit flip. > Those uncopied objects will have the clean FORWARD_BIT(original mark_bit > is not set ) automatically, > I think it solve the problem, > but I do not know whether it has affected other algorithms in the next > collection. Is this method feasible It's ok to use any of following bits: MARK_BIT, FORWARD_BIT, or AGE_BIT, as long as the algorithm is well designed. > thank you. > liaoyin > > > > > > -- http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
