[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 1998-07-02 (21:27) |
From: | Ohad Rodeh <orodeh@c...> |
Subject: | Re: Garbage collection qustion |
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Damien Doligez wrote: > > >From: Ohad Rodeh <orodeh@cs.huji.ac.il> > > >[allocation: minor=0.0M (4% promoted) (direct major=0K)|collections: > >minor=1, major=0, compact=0|words: 63488 (0% live) (1 chunks)|blocks: 120 > >(99% live) (largest_free=62878)] > [...] > >[allocation: minor=2.7M (0% promoted) (direct major=0K)|collections: > >minor=91, major=21, compact=3|words: 63488 (1% live) (1 chunks)|blocks: > >255 (99% live) (largest_free=62343)] > > I think you are misinterpreting the numbers. The relevant variable > here is heap_words, which doesn't increase at all. > > Does the size of your process (as reported by ps) actually increase ? > > -- Damien > > > Yes, the heap_words parameter does not increase, niether does (ps) report an increase in memory use by the processs. However the minor_words and major_words parameters increase without bound. This is misleading as these parameters record the amount of words allocated in the minor and major heaps respectively. Ohad.