Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

max_overhead vs. caml_gc_major / caml_gc_full_major #4900

Closed
vicuna opened this issue Oct 26, 2009 · 1 comment
Closed

max_overhead vs. caml_gc_major / caml_gc_full_major #4900

vicuna opened this issue Oct 26, 2009 · 1 comment
Labels

Comments

@vicuna
Copy link

vicuna commented Oct 26, 2009

Original bug ID: 4900
Reporter: @mshinwell
Status: closed (set by @damiendoligez on 2009-10-26T13:36:06Z)
Resolution: open
Priority: normal
Severity: minor
Version: 3.11.1
Fixed in version: 3.11.2+dev
Category: ~DO NOT USE (was: OCaml general)

Bug description

I noticed this morning that gc_ctrl.c:test_and_compact, called from caml_gc_major and caml_gc_full_major, appears to be able to call caml_compact_heap (which doesn't test caml_percent_max) in the situation where the first calculation of fp yields >=1_000_000, caml_percent_max is set to 1_000_000, and there is more than one heap chunk.

Is the setting of caml_percent_max (aka max_overhead) to 1_000_000 not supposed to prevent automatic compaction in all cases? I wonder if the test in that function should be "fp > caml_percent_max", or whether 1_000_000 - 1 should be used for the saturating calculation.

@vicuna
Copy link
Author

vicuna commented Oct 26, 2009

Comment author: @damiendoligez

well spotted

@vicuna vicuna closed this as completed Oct 26, 2009
@vicuna vicuna added the bug label Mar 20, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant