Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: markspace <-@.> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Controlling the Garbage Collector Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:34:31 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <6KSdnTwztJvtR0bSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <_JmdnUu_Z-scJEHSnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:34:35 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7zTeebvKpIS8LVJ5OFDmwg"; logging-data="23237"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+oIZgcMSbANSlYoLQfbQ66n50+OsunHzs=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:LWuRRoJNV0+a8Ve5/T/rN2LZmDc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:15339 On 6/16/2012 1:14 PM, Daniel Pitts wrote: > On 6/16/12 12:24 PM, markspace wrote: >> On 6/16/2012 11:24 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: >>> Then I'd suggest Java may be ill-suited to your needs. >> >> >> For us production coders, that's true. Depending on how experimental >> Aaron's project is however, hacking the JVM may not be out of the >> question. What he's talking about certainly sounds more academic to me, >> so I'm sort of curious what methods he's going to use to achieve his >> goals. > It almost sounds like the Aaron may be better off using Event Loop style > architecture, with one event dispatch thread per CPU core. Allow the GC > to do what it does best, and have the operations be smaller and more > decoupled. > I dunno. Phase 1 of his little project might just be to implement a regular old multi-threaded program in Java (probably one with some specific characteristics that he's interested in). Phase 2 might be to modify his local JVM and show that his special GC/threading model produces some specific improvement(s), while running the same byte codes as phase 1. That's what I'd do, if I had the resources....