I'm imagine its something like the following pattern: Run 1: generate X garbage Run 2: generate X garbage, for total 2X garbage, which is over threshold, reduce back to 0 Run 3: generate X garbage Run 4: generate X garbage, for total 2X garbage, which is over threshold, reduce back to 0 and so on
On Friday, December 12, 2014 12:09:19 AM UTC-5, Sean McBane wrote: > > Alright. I am curious now as to what causes this behavior; hopefully > someone will offer an explanation. > > I'll be sure to from now on. > > -- Sean > > On Thursday, December 11, 2014 11:07:07 PM UTC-6, John Myles White wrote: >> >> This is just how the GC works. Someone who's done more work on the GC can >> give you more context about why the GC runs for the length of time it runs >> for at each specific moment that it starts going. >> >> As a favor to me, can you please make sure that you quote the entire >> e-mail thread you're responding to? I find responding to e-mails without >> context to be pretty jarring. >> >> -- John >> >> On Dec 12, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Sean McBane <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Right, I know I'm allocating it and discarding memory. However, if the >> GC cleans up at deterministic points in time, as you point out in your >> first reply, why is timing erratic? And why the regular pattern in timing? >> It's always faster one call, slower one call, faster one call, slower one >> call... >> >>
