Re: Garbage collection qustion

From: Ohad Rodeh (orodeh@cs.huji.ac.il)
Date: Thu Jul 02 1998 - 10:09:52 MET DST


Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:09:52 +0300 (IDT)
From: Ohad Rodeh <orodeh@cs.huji.ac.il>
To: Damien Doligez <Damien.Doligez@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: Garbage collection qustion
In-Reply-To: <199807010926.LAA20020@tobago.inria.fr>

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.
   



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:15 MET