You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Xiao-Feng Li <xl...@apache.org> on 2008/04/23 12:26:12 UTC
Re: [drlvm][gc]Mark bit design
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:15 PM, lyon <us...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi, Xiao-Feng Li
>
> In your blog article "[Harmony GC Internal] Mark bit design" ,
> you write that "They might not know each other, and continue to scan the
> slots of the marked object."
> (The third paragraph). If they continue to scan the slots of the marked
> object, they would push the same
> p_ref into the collector tracestack.Is this the redundant work? Will
> this situation cause to be wrong?
It's redundant, but not wrong. In my experience, the redundancy is negligible.
> And, according to some details with partial-forward ,you ues the AGE_BIT
> to indicate the objects are
> uncopied objects.
> I find out another method. the old copy of a forwarded object has
> FORWARD_BIT set. The those live
> object left uncopied was also set FORWARD_BIT(The original method is
> that uncopied obj was set MARK_BIT )
> But The those live object left uncopied was not forwarded to mos
> really,They still keep the original place.
> The Mark_bit of the remained objs will be not set. Then the bit flip.
> Those uncopied objects will have the clean FORWARD_BIT(original mark_bit
> is not set ) automatically,
> I think it solve the problem,
> but I do not know whether it has affected other algorithms in the next
> collection. Is this method feasible
It's ok to use any of following bits: MARK_BIT, FORWARD_BIT, or
AGE_BIT, as long as the algorithm is well designed.
> thank you.
> liaoyin
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com