This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 2/3] Free large chunks in ggc
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>> > diff --git a/gcc/ggc-page.c b/gcc/ggc-page.c
>> > index ba88e3f..eb0eeef 100644
>> > --- a/gcc/ggc-page.c
>> > +++ b/gcc/ggc-page.c
>> > @@ -972,6 +972,54 @@ release_pages (void)
>> > ? page_entry *p, *start_p;
>> > ? char *start;
>> > ? size_t len;
>> > + ?size_t mapped_len;
>> > + ?page_entry *next, *prev, *newprev;
>> > + ?size_t free_unit = PARAM_VALUE (GGC_FREE_UNIT) * G.pagesize;
>> > +
>> > + ?/* First free larger continuous areas to the OS.
>> > + ? ? This allows other allocators to grab these areas if needed.
>> > + ? ? This is only done on larger chunks to avoid fragmentation.
>> > + ? ? This does not always work because the free_pages list is only
>> > + ? ? sorted over a single GC cycle. */
>>
>> But release_pages is only called from ggc_collect, or what do you
>
> If there was a spike in GC usage and we end up with lots of free
> space in the free list afterward we free it back on the next GC cycle.
> Then if there's a malloc or other allocator later it can grab
> the address space we freed.
>
> That was done to address your earlier concern.
>
> This will only happen on ggc_collect of course.
>
> So one difference from before the madvise patch is that different
> generations of free pages can accumulate in the freelist. Before madvise
> the freelist would never contain more than one generation.
> Normally it's sorted by address due to the way GC works, but there's no
> attempt to keep the sort order over multiple generations.
>
> The "free in batch" heuristic requires sorting, so it will only
> work if all the pages are freed in a single gc cycle.
>
> I considered sorting, but it seemed to be too slow.
>
> I can expand the comment on that.
Ah, now I see ... but that's of course bad - I expect large regions to be
free only after multiple collections. Can you measure what sorting would
make for a difference?
>
>> mean with the above? ?Would the hitrate using the quire size increase
>> if we change how we allocate from the freelist or is it real fragmentation
>> that causes it?
>
> Not sure really about the hitrate. I haven't measured it. If hitrate
> was a concern the free list should be probably split into an array.
> I'm sure there are lots of other tunings that could be done on the GC,
> but probably not by me for now :)
Heh. Yeah, I suppose the freelist could be changed into a list of
allocation groups with free pages and a bitmap.
Richard.
>>
>> I'm a bit hesitant to approve the new param, I'd be ok if we just hard-code
>> quire-size / 2.
>
> Ok replacing it with a hardcoded value.
>
> -Andi
>