On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 04:26:18 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Monday, 20 May 2013 at 13:55:05 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:50:25 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1eovfu/dconf_2013_day_1_talk_6_concurrent_garbage/
This may be the Windows Copy On Write feature mentioned in the
Q&A at the end:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/103858
Yes, basically. I can't find where I've read that mapping COW
memory from within the same process is only supported on NT
versions. However, doing it from within the same process is not
practical anyway, since that would imply at least halving the
address space.
Either way, at least on windows the separate process would have
to be persistent as creating a new process has a lot more
overhead attached to it than on posix systems. Implicitly
creating a child process is also something a D programmer might
not want, again this is more windows specific where processes do
not have the same strict hierarchy as on posix.
On 64-bit systems there shouldn't be a problem with address
space, and even on 32-bit systems, the objects which take up the
vast majority of the address space are usually arrays of
primitive types which don't need to be scanned by the GC.
Certainly for 64-bit systems I think it's worth at least doing
some performance comparisons, and I think using a thread will
turn out to be more efficient. If it turns out that there are
merits to both options then having a GC option to use a process
or a thread might make sense.
