Hi Ben, > On Dec 4, 2017, at 6:38 AM, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 4 December 2017 at 15:47, Clément Bera <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Here are some ideas/things to say on the tip of my head: >> - Changing an object to a forwarding object is non atomic (we need to >> maintain at least stack invariant) > > Thats because the whole multiword object has to be copied. > What about the reverse, flattening a forwarding-object back into the > real-object? > I presume only the one word of the object-pointer is updated. > btw, are we safe if competing threads write the *same* data to a slot,
Alas a forwarding object has two fields that need to be set in separate words. The class index in the header must be the forwarder class index, and the first word of the object body must point to the forwarder. Reverting obviously requires two writes too. So atomic (un)forwarding is not possible. > > > Anyway my idea was the GC-thread would only *identify* objects to be > moved, and queue them > for the Main-thread to chip away at, so only one thread is converting > objects to forwarding objects. > > >> - To decrease the pauses in full GC I have 2 plans: >> -- incremental marking (split the mark pause in multiple small pauses): Not >> implemented right now. >> -- selective compaction (compacts only part of the heap instead of all the >> heap and sweeps the rest, similar to G1, but uses forwarders instead of lots >> of card marking metadata): I implemented SpurSweeper which only sweeps but >> works very well. >> - Currently the marking phase removes all forwarders and I would like >> incremental marking to maintain the same invariant (forwarders are always >> white). > > A concurrent-marking thread could essentially do the same. > i. From shared memory load forwarder F from object-slot > F <== object-slot > > ii. Follow forwarder to real-object, store into temporary R > R <== flattened/followed pointer > > iii. Atomic compare-and-swap R back into object-slot, > object-slot <== if F then R > > When (iii.) fails > * If I'm the Main-thread, then an other-thread already did what I wanted, > and since thats the *only* mutation other-threads can do to an object-slot. > I am certain... "object-slot == R", so since I'm handling a > failed forwarding-check, just continue with the normal retry. > * If I'm an other-thread, no hurry. Read the object-slot again and it > "should" be a real-object, otherwise just keep trying until I get one. > > So the question is... When using forwarders for compaction, > how often would fail forwarder-check fail... > * if there was one thread on its own; versus > * in the Main-thread if an other-thread had already flattened many of them > > >> - In general, Concurrent marking and sweeping have been implemented >> everywhere, but no concurrent compaction. For compaction you can make it >> selective (compact only part of the heap and the part which needs it the >> most) like I suggest and like in G1, which decreases considerably compaction >> pause time. Work on concurrent compaction is state of the art and not in >> production everywhere, see for example > > IIUC not many other languages use forwarding pointer like we do, and > these seem like a real advantage > to compact incrementally and concurrently. > > >> No more time right now. > > I recognise it wasn't a great format. > I really appreciate the time you could spare. > > cheers -ben >
