On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 07:24:42PM -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:40:43 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > Any thoughts on how, by default, timing of garbage collection cycles is > > affected by whether the process is "idle". > > > > For example, if non-GC threads are all waiting on events, might the > > thread with GC be more likely to trigger a GC at that idle time, rather > > than when some threads are working? > > No. > > Eventually, we should improve the collector (or replace it with a > better one) to support incremental collection. Then, it would be easy > to use idle CPUs for GC work. Currently, though, if a GC is started, > then the GC has to complete before anything else can happen, so a GC is > triggered only by memory demand or explicit request.
This does mean it's worthwhile to explicitly request a garbage collection when you expect to be idle for a perid of time. But the system won't do this for you. -- hendrik _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
