At 4:38 PM -0400 4/10/02, Michel J Lambert wrote:
> > >One option might be a
>> >threshold - if, after the DOD run, there is still less than N headers
>> >available, allocate more even though we can satisfy the immediate
>> >requirement. This would improve performance by reducing the number of DOD
>> >runs, but at the cost of additional memory - a classic tradeoff!
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> That's one of the reasons I put the counters into the GC system--I
>> expect some sort of feedback system that dynamically modifies the
>> allocation quantities for memory and various interpreter structures
>> is in order.
>>
>> Anyone care to write one? :) (I went for the simple and relatively
>> naive way to start mainly just to get something done)
>
>Well, this sounds like it all goes inline with the use less "memory"
>pragmas. Should the interface to the GC be raw, low-level vars that this
>pragma would manually set? Or should the interface be a high-level
>optimize-for-this variable which the GC uses internally?
>
>I believe this discussion has happened before, but no consensus was
>reached.
That was a different discussion. Related, but different. :)
>(And no, this isn't me volunteering, at least not yet. ;)
Oh, sure, duck the decision. :) I'll think on this a bit, and see
what we might do. Then I'll do it, and we can mock it appropriately
after.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
