On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:55:43AM +0000, Fredrik Boulund via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Monday, 14 September 2015 at 18:31:38 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >I tried implementing a crude version of this (see code below), and > >found that manually calling GC.collect() even as frequently as once > >every 5000 loop iterations (for a 500,000 line test input file) still > >gives about 15% performance improvement over completely disabling the > >GC. Since most of the arrays involved here are pretty small, the > >frequency could be reduced to once every 50,000 iterations and you'd > >pretty much get the 20% performance boost for free, and still not run > >out of memory too quickly. > > Interesting, I'll have to go through your code to understand exactly > what's going on. I also noticed some GC-related stuff high up in my > profiling, but had no idea what could be done about that. Appreciate > the suggestions!
It's very simple, actually. Basically you just call GC.disable() at the beginning of the program to disable automatic collection cycles, then at period intervals in you manually trigger collections by calling GC.collect(). The way I implemented it in my test code was to use a global counter that I decrement once every loop iteration. When the counter reaches zero, GC.collect() is called, and then the counter is reset to its original value. This is encapsulated in the gcTick() function, so that it's easy to tweak the frequency of the manual collections without modifying several different places in the code each time. T -- BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port Not Responding. -- YHL
