On 5/14/2011 7:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On 2011-05-14 19:09, Brad Roberts wrote: >> On 5/14/2011 7:02 PM, David Simcha wrote: >>> On 5/14/2011 8:28 PM, Sean Kelly wrote: >>>> Technically, you want a free list per core. I don't know how practical >>>> it is to figure that out though. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On May 12, 2011, at 8:14 PM, David Simcha<[email protected]> wrote: >>> The idea being that, if you have a free list per core, there will almost >>> never be any contention in practice, even if you have way more threads >>> than cores? >> >> Ideally neither contention nor cache swapping. It'd stay in the l1 or l2 >> of the core directly involved with the allocations. By being thread >> centric even if not contended it could still wander between cores and thus >> the caches associated with them. >> >> A serious micro-optimization, but.. > > But we're always serious about our micro-optimizations! ;) > > Yes, anything which we can reasonably do to make the GC more efficient is a > good thing. Java already gets enough flak for its GC (most undeservedly at > this point), and it has an efficient one. We don't. So, anything we can > reasonably do to improve how well the GC performs is definitely desirable. > > - Jonathan M Davis
Macro before micro though. _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
