RFC: Make Traversal GC default in dev?

[Roman Kennke]

Yes I'm on vacation, that's why I don't think clear ;-)
But it reminds me, can you check implementation of pacing in traversal? When I merged partial and traversal, this was one of the parts that I was not sure of, and which I probably messed up.

Thanks, Roman


Am 23. Mai 2018 11:40:19 MESZ schrieb Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com>:
>On 05/23/2018 11:04 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> What speaks against making Traversal GC the default mode in dev
>branch? It seems to equal or
>> exceed performance and latency in most cases, sometimes dramatically,
>it provides better
>> footprint properties due to incremental-updatish algorithm, a simpler
>barrier story, etc. Early
>> testers have uncovered some bugs, but now seem happy with it. What's
>holding it back? 
>
>From the top of my head:
>
>1) Throughput is not necessarily better: Compiler.* is ~4% slower,
>Derby is ~2% slower
>
>2) There is no traversal in sh/jdk9 and sh/jdk8, and most of our
>adopters are on sh/jdk8, so not
>only this move would split our adopter user base, depending on what
>version they are running, but it
>also provides us no substantial exposure benefits.
>
>3) Recent C2 barrier work have not been ported/verified for traversal?
>
>I believe traversal is the future going forward, but there are also
>engineering things we need to
>complete before we consider it to be default.
>
>-Aleksey
>
>P.S. Aren't you on vacation?

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.