标记和扫描GC有什么问题？ [英] What's wrong with mark-and-sweep GCs?

问题描述

我正在阅读 Steve Yegge的Dynamic Languages Strike回来的谈话，并在其中他批评标记和扫描的GC（通过该链接约5-10％，猪试图飞幻灯片）他们有什么问题？

解决方案

以下是引用的上下文： b
$ b

垃圾收集器是我得到的
最佳答案，因为
减少了暂停，坦白地说，
是今天所有
[new]动态语言的垃圾收集器是
废话。他们是马克和扫描，或
他们被引用计数。

从引用，他似乎在谈论相当原始的不是世代的GC。世代GC仍然可以被标记和扫描，但是它们大多数时间都没有标记，这使得它们比每次标记和扫描世界要快得多。

假设这就是他的意思，我同意 - 但他可以说得更清楚。请记住，这只是一场演讲，而不是博士论文，尽管表达自己的最明确的方式是棘手：）

I'm reading Steve Yegge's "Dynamic Languages Strike Back" talk, and in it he sort of criticizes mark-and-sweep GCs (about 5-10 percent through that link, the "Pigs attempt's to fly" slide) What's wrong with them?

解决方案

Here's the context of the quote:

Generational garbage collectors is the best answer I've got for that, because it reduces the pauses, and frankly, the garbage collectors for all the [new] dynamic languages today are crap. They're mark-and-sweep, or they're reference counted.

From the quote, he appears to be talking about fairly primitive GCs which aren't generational. Generational GCs can still be mark and sweep, but they have a lot less to mark most of the time, which makes them a lot faster than "mark and sweep the world every time".

Assuming that's what he meant, I agree - but he could have put it more clearly. Bear in mind that this was a talk rather than a doctoral thesis though - coming up with the clearest possible way of expressing yourself "on the hoof" is kinda tricky :)

这篇关于标记和扫描GC有什么问题？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！