[#27380] [Bug #2553] Fix pthreads slowness by eliminating unnecessary sigprocmask calls — Dan Peterson <redmine@...>

Bug #2553: Fix pthreads slowness by eliminating unnecessary sigprocmask calls

21 messages 2010/01/03

[#27437] [Feature #2561] 1.8.7 Patch reduces time cost of Rational operations by 50%. — Kurt Stephens <redmine@...>

Feature #2561: 1.8.7 Patch reduces time cost of Rational operations by 50%.

9 messages 2010/01/06

[#27447] [Bug #2564] [patch] re-initialize timer_thread_{lock,cond} after fork — Aliaksey Kandratsenka <redmine@...>

Bug #2564: [patch] re-initialize timer_thread_{lock,cond} after fork

18 messages 2010/01/06

[#27635] [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #2619: Proposed method: Process.fork_supported?

45 messages 2010/01/20
[#27643] [Feature #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Luis Lavena <redmine@...> 2010/01/21

Issue #2619 has been updated by Luis Lavena.

[#27678] Re: [Feature #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/01/22

Hi,

[#27684] Re: [Feature #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2010/01/22

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> w=

[#27708] Re: [Feature #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/01/22

Hi,

[#27646] Re: [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2010/01/21

2010/1/21 Hongli Lai <redmine@ruby-lang.org>:

[#27652] Re: [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Hongli Lai <hongli@...99.net> 2010/01/21

On 1/21/10 5:20 AM, Tanaka Akira wrote:

[#27653] Re: [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2010/01/21

2010/1/21 Hongli Lai <hongli@plan99.net>:

[#27662] Re: [Bug #2619] Proposed method: Process.fork_supported? — Vladimir Sizikov <vsizikov@...> 2010/01/21

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:

[#27698] [Bug #2629] ConditionVariable#wait(mutex, timeout) should return whether the condition was signalled, not the waited time — Hongli Lai <redmine@...>

Bug #2629: ConditionVariable#wait(mutex, timeout) should return whether the condition was signalled, not the waited time

8 messages 2010/01/22

[#27722] [Feature #2635] Unbundle rdoc — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>

Feature #2635: Unbundle rdoc

14 messages 2010/01/23

[#27757] [Bug #2638] ruby-1.9.1-p37[68] build on aix5.3 with gcc-4.2 failed to run for me because it ignores where libgcc is located. — Joel Soete <redmine@...>

Bug #2638: ruby-1.9.1-p37[68] build on aix5.3 with gcc-4.2 failed to run for me because it ignores where libgcc is located.

10 messages 2010/01/24

[#27778] [Bug #2641] Seg fault running miniruby during ruby build on Haiku — Alexander von Gluck <redmine@...>

Bug #2641: Seg fault running miniruby during ruby build on Haiku

10 messages 2010/01/25

[#27791] [Bug #2644] memory over-allocation with regexp — Greg Hazel <redmine@...>

Bug #2644: memory over-allocation with regexp

12 messages 2010/01/25

[#27794] [Bug #2647] Lack of testing for String#split — Hugh Sasse <redmine@...>

Bug #2647: Lack of testing for String#split

14 messages 2010/01/25

[#27912] [Bug #2669] mkmf find_executable doesn't find .bat files — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #2669: mkmf find_executable doesn't find .bat files

11 messages 2010/01/27

[#27930] [Bug:trunk] some behavior changes of lib/csv.rb between 1.8 and 1.9 — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...>

Hi jeg2, or anyone who knows the implementation of FasterCSV,

15 messages 2010/01/28
[#27931] Re: [Bug:trunk] some behavior changes of lib/csv.rb between 1.8 and 1.9 — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2010/01/28

On Jan 28, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Yusuke ENDOH wrote:

[ruby-core:27536] Re: better GC?

From: Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
Date: 2010-01-11 14:52:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #27536
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 06:55:53AM +0900, Roger Pack wrote:
> Could I put in a small plea for a better GC?
> 
> With this code:
> 
> (1..7).each{|n| puts n; a = ['a']*(10**n); a.inspect;}
> 
> when n gets high enough almost 50% of the time is spent in GC.
> Somewhat frustrating.

I modified this program slightly (imo cases n=1..6 aren't useful for a
profile):

  pbrannan@random:~/tmp> cat test.rb
  100.times do |n|
    puts n
    a = ['a']*(10**6)
    a.inspect
  end

The results aren't at all surprising.  Callgrind reports 52% of the
application's run time is spent in gc_mark.  21% of the time is spent in
gc_mark_children, which means the majority of the time the objects
are immediate objects or have already been marked (I'm guessing the
latter in this program).

This probably isn't very representative of a real-world application due
to the small number of objects, but the large size of the array.

It makes me think two things though:

1. Is gc_mark getting inlined?  If it were, marking the array could be
   done without so many function calls.

2. If there were many objects, what would be the cost of resetting the
   FL_MARK flag on all the objects in gc_sweep?  Could this cost be
   eliminated by using a 2-bit counter instead of a single flag?

   RBASIC(v)->flags = 0 /* when the object is created */
   counter = ((counter + 1) % 3) + 1; /* before marking */
   if (p->as.basic.mark_counter == counter) /* to check if marked */
   p->as.basic.mark_counter = counter; /* to mark */
   ; /* no need to reset all the flags at the end now */

Hoping to spark some thought/discussion,

Paul


In This Thread