Comparing mark-and sweep and stop-and-copy garbage collection
LFP '90 Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on LISP and functional programming
The treadmill: real-time garbage collection without motion sickness
ACM SIGPLAN Notices
Reducing garbage collector cache misses
Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on Memory management
A nonrecursive list compacting algorithm
Communications of the ACM
Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine, Part I
Communications of the ACM
Balanced Search Trees Made Simple
WADS '93 Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures
Mark DURING Sweep rather than Mark THEN Sweep
PARLE '89 Proceedings of the Parallel Architectures and Languages Europe, Volume I: Parallel Architectures
Java server performance: a case study of building efficient, scalable Jvms
IBM Systems Journal
Software—Practice & Experience
Statistically rigorous java performance evaluation
Proceedings of the 22nd annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming systems and applications
The mapping collector: virtual memory support for generational, parallel, and concurrent compaction
Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems
An efficient non-moving garbage collector for functional languages
Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The mark-sweep garbage collection algorithm constructs a list of memory areas to allocate into (the free list) during its sweep phase. This phase needs time proportional to the size of the heap which is collected. We introduce mark-split, a non-moving garbage collection algorithm that constructs the free list during the mark phase by maintaining and splitting free intervals. With mark-split, the sweep phase of mark-sweep becomes unnecessary and the cost of collection is proportional to the size of the live data set. Our performance evaluation, using a high performance Java implementation running standard benchmarks, shows that mark-split can significantly reduce collection times compared with mark-sweep and requires little extra space to do so. The overhead to the cost of marking is moderate and often pays off for itself by avoiding the sweep phase. Since there is no guarantee that this is always the case, we also propose adaptive schemes that try to combine the best performance characteristics of mark-split and mark-sweep collection.