https://codereview.chromium.org/1252053003/diff/1/src/heap/spaces.cc
File src/heap/spaces.cc (left):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1252053003/diff/1/src/heap/spaces.cc#oldcode1489
src/heap/spaces.cc:1489: int bytes_allocated = static_cast<int>(old_top
- top_on_previous_step_);
This code accounted for bytes_allocated before we switch over to a new
page. When you remove that, you are going to account for potentially
more memory on the next Step (because of fragmentation). I do not think
we should remove this code.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1252053003/diff/1/src/heap/spaces.cc
File src/heap/spaces.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1252053003/diff/1/src/heap/spaces.cc#newcode1403
src/heap/spaces.cc:1403: if (top_on_previous_step_) {
Resetting here make the step still imprecise. We are loosing the amount
of memory allocated right before resetting. I am fine with that, i.e. it
should not be a problem for incremental marking. But you have to be
aware of that case. Let's add a comment.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1252053003/diff/1/src/heap/spaces.cc#newcode1478
src/heap/spaces.cc:1478: int aligned_size_in_bytes = size_in_bytes +
alignment_size;
I think we do not need the complicated machinery to update new inline
allocation limit. Why don't we just allocate, get the new top pointer
after that, perform the Step, and call UpdateInlineAllocationLimit(0)?
https://codereview.chromium.org/1252053003/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
