Hi Lokesh --<br><br>AFAIR, it's just a historical artifact. (Jon, Peter or John will probably know for sure.)<br> If the perm gen card-scanning task is queued first, its longer latency<br>will usually be hidden behind the parallel old gen scanning tasks. My guess is that with the sizes of<br>
perm gen that it was tested with, this didn't matter, and may be it now does with the sizes you are<br>looking at? This may become moot with the new perm-gen-less meta-data space, where perhaps<br>a different parallel (?) mechanism will be employed for scanning these "roots into young".<br>
<br>Have you obtained data with +PrintGCTaskTimes (or such) that indicates that this is<br>an issue?<br><br>-- ramki<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Lokesh Gidra <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lokesh.gidra@yahoo.com">lokesh.gidra@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div>Hello,</div><div><br></div><div>Is there any specific reason why the permanent generation old to young roots are scanned serially, unlike old generation old to young roots, in Parallel Scavenge GC?</div><div><br></div>
<div><br></div><div>Kind Regards,</div><div>Lokesh</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>