On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:06:25 PM UTC+2, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:01 AM, <canji...@qq.com> wrote: >> > >> > Generational and Compact gc have already been thought best practice. But >> > golang doesn't adopt it. Who can tell me the reason? >> >> Now let's consider a generational GC. The point of a generational GC >> relies on the generational hypothesis: that most values allocated in a >> program are quickly unused, so there is an advantage for the GC to >> spend more time looking at recently allocated objects. > > > From a different angle/viewpoint, the point of a generational GC is to skip > redundant work. Multiple runs of a non-generational GC might be performing > repetitive work that can be avoided in the memory gets partitioned. It seems > to me that looking at a generational GC from work redundancy viewpoint is > slightly more general than the more commonly used generational hypothesis > that most objects die young.
That is a good point. Go's current GC is clearly doing extra work, but it's doing it in parallel with other work, so on a system with spare CPU capacity Go is making a reasonable choice. But see https://golang.org/issue/17969 . Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
