www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - slow runtime

reply Dr. Smith <iam far.out> writes:
The class code below runs terribly slow.  Conversely, when converted into a
function (albeit returning only one value), it runs fast.  Any insights into
this or suggestions to get a function to return multiple types at once?

...library code...

module testlib;
import std.stdio, std.string;

class classtest {

  int i, j;

  double[][] hit() {

    double[][] hi = new double[][](1000, 40);

    for(i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
      for(j = 1; j < 40; j++) {
        hi[i][j] = (i);
      }
    }
    return hi;
  }

  double[][] hot() {

    double[][] ho = new double[][](1000, 40);

    for(i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
      for(j = 1; j < 40; j++) {
        ho[i][j] = (j);
      }
    }
    return ho;
  }

  string stest () {
    string hello = "yo!";
    return hello;
  }
}

... calling code ...

import std.stdio, std.string;
import testlib;

void main() {

  classtest obj = new classtest;
  int i, j;

  for(i = 1; i < obj.hit.length; i++) {
    for(j = 1; j < obj.hit[i].length; j++) {
      writefln("%s\t%f\t%f", obj.stest, obj.hit[i][j], obj.hot[i][j]);
    }
  }
}
Sep 09 2010
next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday 09 September 2010 19:40:47 Dr. Smith wrote:
 The class code below runs terribly slow.  Conversely, when converted into a
 function (albeit returning only one value), it runs fast.  Any insights
 into this or suggestions to get a function to return multiple types at
 once?
 
 ...library code...
 
 module testlib;
 import std.stdio, std.string;
 
 class classtest {
 
   int i, j;
 
   double[][] hit() {
 
     double[][] hi = new double[][](1000, 40);
 
     for(i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
       for(j = 1; j < 40; j++) {
         hi[i][j] = (i);
       }
     }
     return hi;
   }
 
   double[][] hot() {
 
     double[][] ho = new double[][](1000, 40);
 
     for(i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
       for(j = 1; j < 40; j++) {
         ho[i][j] = (j);
       }
     }
     return ho;
   }
 
   string stest () {
     string hello = "yo!";
     return hello;
   }
 }
 
 ... calling code ...
 
 import std.stdio, std.string;
 import testlib;
 
 void main() {
 
   classtest obj = new classtest;
   int i, j;
 
   for(i = 1; i < obj.hit.length; i++) {
     for(j = 1; j < obj.hit[i].length; j++) {
       writefln("%s\t%f\t%f", obj.stest, obj.hit[i][j], obj.hot[i][j]);
     }
   }
 }

Ouch. Woh. And ouch. LOL. Do you realize that _every time_ that you use hit or hot in main(), you're calling hit() and hot() and creating them all over again? Currently, functions which don't take any parameters and return a value and functions which take a single paramater and don't return anything are callable as if they were member variables. The correct way to do this is to mark them with property, and eventually functions not marked with property won't be useable as properties (so you'll have to call them explicitly), and functions marked with property will have to be used as properties rathen than called explicitly, but dmd hasn't been updated to that point yet. If you were to just assign hit() and hot() to local variables which you called, it would be a _lot_ faster. Now, it makes no sense for i or j to be member variables of your class since you just reset them every time that you use them, and it makes no sense for any of your functions to be part of a class, so they don't use any state from the class, but that's a separate issue. The problem here is that you keep calling hit() and hot() over and over. You end up with on O(n^4) algorithm instead of O(n^2). Painful indeed. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 09 2010
next sibling parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <test test.test> writes:
Related: Do stack variables get freed on exit or do they just get marked as
unused by the GC? Because I'm not seeing any memory increase over time. I guess
I have to read more about how allocation works. :p

Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

_every time_ that you use hit or 
 hot in main(), you're calling hit() and hot() and creating them all over again

Sep 09 2010
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Jonathan M Davis:
 Now, dynamic arrays live on the stack, even if their references don't,

Dynamic arrays are generally on the heap. Bye, bearophile
Sep 09 2010
parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Jonathan M Davis:
 Aren't they _always_ on the heap?

void main() { int[10] a; int[] b = a[]; } Bye, bearophile
Sep 10 2010
parent Pelle <pelle.mansson gmail.com> writes:
On 09/10/2010 10:17 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Friday 10 September 2010 00:50:32 bearophile wrote:
 Jonathan M Davis:
 Aren't they _always_ on the heap?

void main() { int[10] a; int[] b = a[]; } Bye, bearophile

Ah, good point. When you have a slice of a static array as opposed to a dynamic arra allocated with new, then it's on the stack. Since I pretty much never use static arrays, I forgot about that. - Jonathan M Davis

int i; int[] heh = (&i)[0..1];
Sep 10 2010
prev sibling parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <test test.test> writes:
Let's see if I got this right. The GC asks for some memory from the OS, and
keeps it in a pool. Then when we have to allocate an array, we take some memory
from the GC pool. And when we no longer need the array, the memory gets put
back into the pool to be reused. So does that mean the GC doesn't make any
pauses, unless it requires more memory from the OS?

Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

 On Thursday 09 September 2010 20:17:23 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 Related: Do stack variables get freed on exit or do they just get marked as
 unused by the GC? Because I'm not seeing any memory increase over time. I
 guess I have to read more about how allocation works. :p
 
 Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
 
 _every time_ that you use hit or
 
 hot in main(), you're calling hit() and hot() and creating them all over
 again


A variable on the stack has nothing to do with the GC unless it's in a delegate (since then the delegate must have its stack in a separate area on the heap). Now, dynamic arrays live on the stack, even if their references don't, so allocating a bunch of those will obviously require more memory. However, in this case, he's done with the array as soon as he's used it, so the GC (which if I understand correctly is called every time that new() is - or at least has the opportunity to run every time that new() is called) can reclaim it right away. There's a decent chance that he only ever allocates one array's worth of memory from the OS. Certainly, he wouldn't end up allocating new memory from the OS every time that he calls hit() or hot(). Every time that new is called, the GC will allocate the memory that it's asked to from its heap. At least some of the time that new is called, the GC will check to see if any of its heap memory can be recovered, and then recover it (so it's deallocated from the programs perspective but not returned to the OS). If the GC needs more memory than it has free on its heap, it will allocate more from the OS. Ideally, the GC would also look at how much memory that it has in its heap vs how much the program is currently using and then return some of it to the OS if it has too much free, but as I understand it, it doesn't currently do that. So, once your program uses a certain amount of memory, it won't ever use any less until it terminates. Presumably, that will be fixed at some point though. - Jonathan M Davis

Sep 10 2010
next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Andrej Mitrovic:
 So does that mean the GC doesn't make any pauses, unless it requires more
memory from the OS?

When you ask memory to the GC, it may perform collections, so it performs some computations, even if no new memory gets asked to the OS. Bye, bearophile
Sep 10 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Friday 10 September 2010 09:44:10 bearophile wrote:
 Andrej Mitrovic:
 So does that mean the GC doesn't make any pauses, unless it requires more
 memory from the OS?

When you ask memory to the GC, it may perform collections, so it performs some computations, even if no new memory gets asked to the OS. Bye, bearophile

Yeah. That's actually generally where GCs end up causing performance problems. It's not the fact that they have to grab more memory from the OS or give it back but rather the fact that it takes the time to figure out what it can put back in its own memory pool. Even worse, in most GCs, it's completely underministic when that could happen, so it could end up slowing down your program at critical moments. For most apps, that doesn't really matter, and I suspect that D's is currently somewhat more deterministic than most since it only runs the GC code when new is called as opposed to having its own separate thread, but it's a common criticism of GCs. The other would have to do with their memory consumption which stems from the fact that they maintain a memory pool and are essentially guaranteed to be holding more memory that you would if you freed memory immediately when you were done with it. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're less efficient - that depends on the GC and can be hotly debated - but it does mean that your program will require more memory using a GC than not. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 10 2010
prev sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
This is why I'm happy to see some people (Leandro in particular) are
already working on different GC designs for D. :)

So to evade the GC's pauses as much as possible, one would stick with
using structs or preallocate all needed data before a critical
section? I'll have to get more into that eventually, one of my future
goals (future as in years+ from now) is to make a realtime musical app
(a sequencer).

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote:
 Yeah. That's actually generally where GCs end up causing performance problems.
 It's not the fact that they have to grab more memory from the OS or give it
back
 but rather the fact that it takes the time to figure out what it can put back
in
 its own memory pool. Even worse, in most GCs, it's completely underministic
when
 that could happen, so it could end up slowing down your program at critical
 moments. For most apps, that doesn't really matter, and I suspect that D's is
 currently somewhat more deterministic than most since it only runs the GC code
 when new is called as opposed to having its own separate thread, but it's a
 common criticism of GCs. The other would have to do with their memory
 consumption which stems from the fact that they maintain a memory pool and are
 essentially guaranteed to be holding more memory that you would if you freed
 memory immediately when you were done with it. Now, that doesn't necessarily
 mean that they're less efficient - that depends on the GC and can be hotly
debated
 - but it does mean that your program will require more memory using a GC than
 not.

 - Jonathan M Davis

Sep 10 2010
prev sibling parent Dr. Smith <iam far.out> writes:
Jonathan, thank you for the quick response.  I made some changes as you
suggested
and got much more speed. For some code that I'd like to convert to D, I am
exploring the pros and cons of constructing a class library (versus a C like
function library). My code here is just part of that exploration.

... the improved calling code ...

import std.stdio, std.string;
import testlib;

void main() {

  classtest obj = new classtest;
  double[][] a = obj.hit;
  double[][] b = obj.hot;
  string c = obj.stest;

  int i, j;

  for(i = 1; i < a.length; i++) {
    for(j = 1; j < a[i].length; j++) {
      writefln("%s\t%f\t%f", c, a[i][j], b[i][j]);
    }
  }
}
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday 09 September 2010 19:40:47 Dr. Smith wrote:
 The class code below runs terribly slow.  Conversely, when converted into a
 function (albeit returning only one value), it runs fast.  Any insights
 into this or suggestions to get a function to return multiple types at
 once?
 
 ...library code...
 
 module testlib;
 import std.stdio, std.string;
 
 class classtest {
 
   int i, j;
 
   double[][] hit() {
 
     double[][] hi = new double[][](1000, 40);
 
     for(i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
       for(j = 1; j < 40; j++) {
         hi[i][j] = (i);
       }
     }
     return hi;
   }
 
   double[][] hot() {
 
     double[][] ho = new double[][](1000, 40);
 
     for(i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
       for(j = 1; j < 40; j++) {
         ho[i][j] = (j);
       }
     }
     return ho;
   }
 
   string stest () {
     string hello = "yo!";
     return hello;
   }
 }
 
 ... calling code ...
 
 import std.stdio, std.string;
 import testlib;
 
 void main() {
 
   classtest obj = new classtest;
   int i, j;
 
   for(i = 1; i < obj.hit.length; i++) {
     for(j = 1; j < obj.hit[i].length; j++) {
       writefln("%s\t%f\t%f", obj.stest, obj.hit[i][j], obj.hot[i][j]);
     }
   }
 }

By the way, it looks like what you're trying to do could be shrunk down to import std.stdio; void main() { for(float i = 1; i < 1000; ++i) { for(float j = 1; j < 40; ++j) writefln("yo!\t%f\t%f", i, j); } } and that runs _way_ faster. I don't understand why you're doing anything with arrays in the first place given what you're printing. But maybe you're just trying to show a simplified test case. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday 09 September 2010 20:17:23 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 Related: Do stack variables get freed on exit or do they just get marked as
 unused by the GC? Because I'm not seeing any memory increase over time. I
 guess I have to read more about how allocation works. :p
 
 Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
 
 _every time_ that you use hit or
 
 hot in main(), you're calling hit() and hot() and creating them all over
 again


A variable on the stack has nothing to do with the GC unless it's in a delegate (since then the delegate must have its stack in a separate area on the heap). Now, dynamic arrays live on the stack, even if their references don't, so allocating a bunch of those will obviously require more memory. However, in this case, he's done with the array as soon as he's used it, so the GC (which if I understand correctly is called every time that new() is - or at least has the opportunity to run every time that new() is called) can reclaim it right away. There's a decent chance that he only ever allocates one array's worth of memory from the OS. Certainly, he wouldn't end up allocating new memory from the OS every time that he calls hit() or hot(). Every time that new is called, the GC will allocate the memory that it's asked to from its heap. At least some of the time that new is called, the GC will check to see if any of its heap memory can be recovered, and then recover it (so it's deallocated from the programs perspective but not returned to the OS). If the GC needs more memory than it has free on its heap, it will allocate more from the OS. Ideally, the GC would also look at how much memory that it has in its heap vs how much the program is currently using and then return some of it to the OS if it has too much free, but as I understand it, it doesn't currently do that. So, once your program uses a certain amount of memory, it won't ever use any less until it terminates. Presumably, that will be fixed at some point though. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday 09 September 2010 20:54:15 Dr. Smith wrote:
 Jonathan, thank you for the quick response.  I made some changes as you
 suggested and got much more speed. For some code that I'd like to convert
 to D, I am exploring the pros and cons of constructing a class library
 (versus a C like function library). My code here is just part of that
 exploration.
 
 ... the improved calling code ...
 
 import std.stdio, std.string;
 import testlib;
 
 void main() {
 
   classtest obj = new classtest;
   double[][] a = obj.hit;
   double[][] b = obj.hot;
   string c = obj.stest;
 
   int i, j;
 
   for(i = 1; i < a.length; i++) {
     for(j = 1; j < a[i].length; j++) {
       writefln("%s\t%f\t%f", c, a[i][j], b[i][j]);
     }
   }
 }

The other thing to consider is structs vs classes. Structs are value types which live on the heap and have no inheritance or polymorphism. Classes are reference types which live on the heap and have both inheritance and polymorphism. The general rule is to make something a struct unless you need inheritance and polymorphism (though obviously other things make factor into that choice). Also, if you're serious about learning D, I'd definitely recommend picking up Andrei's book, "The D Programming Language." It's far more detailed and up-to- date than any of the online docs (though dmd isn't quite yet up-to-date in comparison to the book on all counts - the property issue that you ran into being one). If you're just dabbling in D, it may not be worth the cost, but if you really want to be using D, then I think that it's well worth the cost. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 09 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday 09 September 2010 23:23:45 bearophile wrote:
 Jonathan M Davis:
 Now, dynamic arrays live on the stack, even if their references don't,

Dynamic arrays are generally on the heap. Bye, bearophile

Aren't they _always_ on the heap? Their references are obviously on the stack, but as I understood it, the dynamic arrays themselves were always on the heap. Maybe scope could put them on the stack, but since scope is going away in that context, it doesn't really count. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 10 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Friday 10 September 2010 00:50:32 bearophile wrote:
 Jonathan M Davis:
 Aren't they _always_ on the heap?

void main() { int[10] a; int[] b = a[]; } Bye, bearophile

Ah, good point. When you have a slice of a static array as opposed to a dynamic arra allocated with new, then it's on the stack. Since I pretty much never use static arrays, I forgot about that. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 10 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Friday 10 September 2010 17:36:06 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 This is why I'm happy to see some people (Leandro in particular) are
 already working on different GC designs for D. :)
 
 So to evade the GC's pauses as much as possible, one would stick with
 using structs or preallocate all needed data before a critical
 section? I'll have to get more into that eventually, one of my future
 goals (future as in years+ from now) is to make a realtime musical app
 (a sequencer).

I think that realistically, most apps can do realtime just fine with full GC use (certainly with a good GC). You lack _guaranteed_ realtime performance, but you're almost certainly going to get it. I'm not really sure how you'd avoid the GC running other than avoid using the GC. So, if you heavily use structs and very few classes or dynamic arrays, then there won't be many opportunities for the GC to run a collection cycle. However, once the GC lives in its own thread (which I think that it's bound to do eventually), it could run at any time. Low use of the GC heap means that it will have less to do, so any pauses that it has will likely be shorter (assuming that it can't do what it does in O(1), but I doubt that GCs usually can, if ever), and depending on how it decides when it should do a collection cycle, it may not run the cycle as often, and so you'd get fewer pauses. But you still may get them. The reality of the matter is that in any program that uses a GC, you're at risk of the GC collection cycle running at some point whether you want it to or not. But with a good GC, odds are that it won't be a problem. Now, with D's current GC, if you never call any function that allocates or frees from the GC heap, then it's not going to run a collection cycle. So, if you have a critical section of code that _must_ be realtime, and you don't do anything that could allocate or free from the GC heap in that section, then no GC collection cycle will run. That doesn't necessarily mean restricting yourself to structs - classes will work just fine - you just can't allocate any in that section. However, once the GC is more advanced and runs in its own thread (as I assume it will eventually), such a guarantee wouldn't hold anymore (since it could run at any time). However, the fact that you don't allocate or free from the GC heap in a critical section should still reduce the odds of a GC collection cycle being done because it won't need to figure out whether it has enough memory and potentially run a cycle to recover memory. Overall, the key to minimizing the impact of the GC (other than having a good GC) is to minimize how much you do with the GC heap. But generally-speaking, you can't guarantee that a GC collection cycle isn't going to run unless you don't have a GC. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 10 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
What about gc.disable() and gc.enable() ? If I'm sure that I won't
allocate anything within a section of code and I have to guarantee
realtime performance, then I could disable the gc temporarily.
Although this is not exactly what it states in the section on memory
management:

"Call std.gc.disable() before the smooth code is run, and
std.gc.enable() afterwards. This will cause the GC to favor allocating
more memory instead of running a collection pass."

Is the gc disabled after the call to gc.disable(), or just relaxed? If
it's not disabled, then I'm not sure why it's named like that.

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote:
 snip

Sep 10 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
This page might need to be updated soon:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/memory.html

It refers to custom allocators, overloading new and delete, and using
scope for stack allocation.

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Andrej Mitrovic
<andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:
 What about gc.disable() and gc.enable() ? If I'm sure that I won't
 allocate anything within a section of code and I have to guarantee
 realtime performance, then I could disable the gc temporarily.
 Although this is not exactly what it states in the section on memory
 management:

 "Call std.gc.disable() before the smooth code is run, and
 std.gc.enable() afterwards. This will cause the GC to favor allocating
 more memory instead of running a collection pass."

 Is the gc disabled after the call to gc.disable(), or just relaxed? If
 it's not disabled, then I'm not sure why it's named like that.

 On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com>
wrote:
 snip


Sep 10 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> writes:
On Friday 10 September 2010 19:40:10 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 What about gc.disable() and gc.enable() ? If I'm sure that I won't
 allocate anything within a section of code and I have to guarantee
 realtime performance, then I could disable the gc temporarily.
 Although this is not exactly what it states in the section on memory
 management:
 
 "Call std.gc.disable() before the smooth code is run, and
 std.gc.enable() afterwards. This will cause the GC to favor allocating
 more memory instead of running a collection pass."
 
 Is the gc disabled after the call to gc.disable(), or just relaxed? If
 it's not disabled, then I'm not sure why it's named like that.
 
 On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> 

 snip


I'm really not all that well informed about the ins and outs of D's GC and trying to minimize its negative effects. The programs that I write care far more about stuff other than realtime performance for me to go to the effort of trying to avoid the GC (especially since that can seriously complicate a program). However, from the sound of it, std.gc.disable() is arguably poorly name. It obviously doesn't disable the GC completely. new isn't going to start using the manual heap or stop working. It sounds like it doesn't even necessarily disable garbage collection from occurring. My _guess_ would be that what it does is make it so that the GC will allocate memory from the OS if it doesn't have enough free memory in its pool, and if that fails, run a garbage collection cycle to recover memory (since it's either that throw an OutOfMemoryError - or whatever the exception is called exactly - which would kill the program), but I don't know. Certainly, I believe that normally the GC will run a cycle if it's low on free memory in its pool, and then get memory from the OS only if it has to, and if you have called std.gc.disable(), it's not going to be as quick to run a garbage collection cycle. But obviously the documentation does not make it clear enough what _would_ make it run a garbage collection cycle if std.gc.disable() has been called. In any case, if you're looking to avoid GC collection cycles, it sounds like std.gc.disable() and std.gc.enable() will help. But remember that that will increase the odds that it will have to allocate more memory from the OS, which isn't cheap either. It's almost certainly cheap_er_, but it still wouldn't be cheap. Also, with D's current GC, that means that your program will use more memory overall. Not only will you not be using perfectly useable memory from the GC heap (since it won't have been collected yet), but it will allocate more memory to the heap, and the GC's current implementation never gives that memory back to the OS. So, overall memory usage will increase. So, odds are that the best bet would be to avoid allocations in critical sections and call std.gc.disable() before entering them and std.gc.enable() when you exit them. But you probably should get input from one of the D GC gurus if you really want to know the absolute best way to reduce the impact of the GC in critical sections. However, I would point out, as I said before, that on today's systems, odds are that you will get properly realtime performance in spite of the GC and any collection cycles that it runs. D's GC being more primitive may not do as good a job with that as others - like Java's or .NET's - but I'm not sure that you want to complicate your program worrying about the GC unless you profile it appropriately and find out that you need to. Certainly, as D matures, it should become less of an issue. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 10 2010
parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Jonathan M Davis:

 In any case, if you're looking to avoid GC collection cycles, it sounds like 
 std.gc.disable() and std.gc.enable() will help. But remember that that will 
 increase the odds that it will have to allocate more memory from the OS, which 
 isn't cheap either. It's almost certainly cheap_er_, but it still wouldn't be 
 cheap. Also, with D's current GC, that means that your program will use more 
 memory overall.

From my tests, the disable() is useful when you want to just build a data structure, so when you need to quickly allocate many small parts, and then you call enable() when the data structure is done. This avoids many possible collections in the middle, and may lower the running time significantly. Recently the Python GC has introduces some similar automatic optimizations: http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/2.7.html#optimizations The garbage collector now performs better for one common usage pattern: when many objects are being allocated without deallocating any of them. This would previously take quadratic time for garbage collection, but now the number of full garbage collections is reduced as the number of objects on the heap grows. The new logic only performs a full garbage collection pass when the middle generation has been collected 10 times and when the number of survivor objects from the middle generation exceeds 10% of the number of objects in the oldest generation. (Suggested by Martin von L÷wis and implemented by Antoine Pitrou; issue http://bugs.python.org/issue4074 .) I don't know of something similar, may be done automatically by the current D GC. Bye, bearophile
Sep 11 2010
prev sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
No worries, I'm just investigating. I don't need real-time performance
any time soon. :)

I have seen a pluggable .NET system that has to run in real-time. If
that's possible in .net, I'm sure it will be possible in D (if it
isn't already).

Thanks for all your input!

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog gmail.com> wrote:
 However, I would point out, as I said before, that on today's systems, odds are
 that you will get properly realtime performance in spite of the GC and any
 collection cycles that it runs. D's GC being more primitive may not do as good
a
 job with that as others - like Java's or .NET's - but I'm not sure that you
want
 to complicate your program worrying about the GC unless you profile it
 appropriately and find out that you need to. Certainly, as D matures, it should
 become less of an issue.

 - Jonathan M Davis

Sep 10 2010