[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi,
>
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> That's the latest position. My guess is that the long periods where
>> nothing happens except CPU burning are huge GCs, and that some GC bug
>> affecting multiple threads means that these GCs never actually free
>> anything (or not as much as they should, anyway). Any ideas or other
>> datapoints would be much appreciated. Does the Boehm GC handle
>> multiple threads? If it does, perhaps I should try out Ludovic's
>> BGC-Guile.
>
> Is it 1.8 or HEAD?
It's HEAD. I'll try 1.8 to see if that gives different behaviour.
> Actually, I'm suspecting my gc-stats patch [0] to cause some GC problems
> (although this is quite unexpected since it touches only stat
> information). For instance, consider the following program:
>
> $ guile -e '(let loop ((a 0)) (loop a))'
>
> If `guile' is HEAD, then the memory consumption of that process (as
> shown by `top') continuously increases and at a pretty high rate (!).
> If `guile' is 1.8, then that does not happen.
Interesting. Is your gc-stats patch the only change that seems
relevant?
> I will try to dig it further and see whether/what can be done. In the
> meantime, you could try to revert the patch.
Thanks for your input. When I get a little time, I'll experiment with
this.
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
