Myths and realities
- 1 June 2004
- conference paper
- Published by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
- Vol. 32 (1) , 25-36
- https://doi.org/10.1145/1005686.1005693
Abstract
This paper explores and quantifies garbage collection behavior for three whole heap collectors and generational counterparts: for newly allocated objects. These benefits dominate the overheads of generational collectors compared with non-generational and no collection, disputing the myth that "no garbage collection is good garbage collection." Performance is less sensitive to the mature space collection algorithm in our benchmarks. However the locality and pointer mutation characteristics for a given program occasionally prefer copying or mark-sweep. This study is unique in its breadth of garbage collection algorithms and its depth of analysis.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Measuring the cost of storage managementHigher-Order and Symbolic Computation, 1996
- Memory allocation costs in large C and C++ programsSoftware: Practice and Experience, 1994
- The measured cost of conservative garbage collectionSoftware: Practice and Experience, 1993
- The treadmillACM SIGPLAN Notices, 1992
- Simple generational garbage collection and fast allocationSoftware: Practice and Experience, 1989
- Comparison of Compacting Algorithms for Garbage CollectionACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 1983
- A real-time garbage collector based on the lifetimes of objectsCommunications of the ACM, 1983
- On-the-fly garbage collectionCommunications of the ACM, 1978
- An efficient, incremental, automatic garbage collectorCommunications of the ACM, 1976
- A nonrecursive list compacting algorithmCommunications of the ACM, 1970