LGTM if comments are addressed.
http://codereview.chromium.org/8494012/diff/1/src/incremental-marking.cc File src/incremental-marking.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/8494012/diff/1/src/incremental-marking.cc#newcode750 src/incremental-marking.cc:750: bytes_scanned_ += bytes_to_process; Should the heuristics below be active in SWEEPING state? If yes this might be imprecise. http://codereview.chromium.org/8494012/diff/1/src/incremental-marking.cc#newcode823 src/incremental-marking.cc:823: // 1/n of the space that was available is gone while we were I think the condition says that 1/n is left and (n-1)/n is gone. http://codereview.chromium.org/8494012/diff/1/src/incremental-marking.cc#newcode842 src/incremental-marking.cc:842: + allocation_marking_factor_ * MB < // Delay before upping again. Possible overflow in allocation_marking_factor_ * MB? bytes_scanned / 2 saves parentheses, and should be as fast as (bytes_scanned >> 1). Variables with descriptive names would be better than comments: if (bytes_scanned_ / 2 < promoted_since_start_of_incremental - delay) ... http://codereview.chromium.org/8494012/ -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
