Browse thread
Re: Garbage collection in OCaml
- Damien Doligez
[
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: | -- (:) |
| From: | Damien Doligez <Damien.Doligez@i...> |
| Subject: | Re: Garbage collection in OCaml |
>From: "David McClain" <dmcclain@azstarnet.com>
>I have a long running analysis program written in compiled OCaml (ocamlopt).
>If I let it run without interference it gradually allocates more and more
>memory until the system swap space is exhausted. At that point the program
>bombs off with an "out of memory" errror - probably generated by the OCaml
>array management routines.
Most likely, a fragmentation problem. If you're using a lot of arrays
or strings with different sizes, it can happen.
>OTOH, I found by tinkering that placing a Gc.compact() in a periodically
>performed place, I manage to keep the entire system running within about 70
>MBytes. (My machines all have 256 MB RAM or more).
Thus we know for sure it was a fragmentation problem.
>I have found that placing a Gc.full_major() does virtually nothing to
>prevent the exhaustion of memory, although it slows it down ever so
>slightly.
Gc.full_major() is not going to help, that's normal.
>The program was compiled to run with the default GC settings (whatever those
>are). That is to say, I did nothing to configure the GC system at program
>startup.
>
>Is this behavior normal? Must I plant strategic Gc.compact() in my code? I
>would have thought the GC would be more self monitoring.
Calling Gc.compact() is one solution. You could also try setting
max_overhead in the Gc.control record. For example, if you do:
Gc.set { (Gc.get ()) with Gc.max_overhead = 200 }
then Gc.compact() will get called automatically when the free memory
is 200% the size of the live data. This setting is not activated by
default because compaction is not incremental, so it introduces a long
pause in the computation, which would be annoying for an interactive
program.
-- Damien