A new squeak ObjectMemory?

Scott A Crosby crosby at qwes.math.cmu.edu
Sat Feb 2 01:02:14 UTC 2002


On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, John M McIntosh wrote:

>
> Ok, but I think I'd fiddle with it a bit, can't resist. I think the
> issue with providing one big chunk is that there is no cost to grow
> it to 512MB in Squeak's viewpoint, beyond a IGC every 4000 objects
> and if early tenuring occurs things will just fill up until you do a
> full GC once you run out of memory. Of course this is the worst case.
> The other choice is multiple full GCs to reach 512MB, and both these
> behaviors don't take into account what the VM will do to you.
>

If the tentative profile results I'm seeing are accurate... It looks like
the next big bottleneck in squeak may be the GC and the squeak object
engine. If someone starts working on them, who knows what the next
ObjectMemory may look and behave like. Thus, spending time on
microptimizing the current GC *may* not be useful.

(If anyone wants to brainstorm ideas, continue on this thread.)


Scott






More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list