On 2015/08/17 17:56:16, Hannes Payer wrote:
lgtm
https://codereview.chromium.org/1274453002/diff/1/src/heap/spaces.cc
File src/heap/spaces.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1274453002/diff/1/src/heap/spaces.cc#newcode1410
src/heap/spaces.cc:1410:
heap()->incremental_marking()->Step(bytes_allocated,
On 2015/08/14 15:26:18, ofrobots wrote:
> On 2015/08/14 05:26:30, Hannes Payer wrote:
> > Calling step is is a no-op in this case. ResetAllocationInfo is always
called
> > within the GC. if (heap_->gc_state() != Heap::NOT_IN_GC ... will bail
out
> > immediately.
>
> The objective is to make accounting of the allocated bytes accurate.
Today,
> incremental_marking doesn't care about the bytes allocated during GC,
but
there
> might be other consumers of the allocated bytes (such as a sampling heap
> profiler) that do care about these bytes. It does make sense to do a
> inline-allocation-step here, even if incremental_marking is going to
ignore
> them.
>
> Once I refactor this into NewSpace::InlineAllocationStep, this would
become
more
> obvious.
SGTM with the refactoring.
Refactoring in https://codereview.chromium.org/1351983002.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1274453002/
--
--
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.
