Chromium Code Reviews
Help | Chromium Project | Sign in
(3)

Issue 10974003: Make the speed of incrmental marking depend also on the rate (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
2 years, 6 months ago by Erik Corry
Modified:
2 years, 6 months ago
Reviewers:
Michael Starzinger
CC:
v8-dev
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Make the speed of incremental marking depend also on the rate at which we are hitting expensive write barrier operations, not just on the rate of allocation. Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=12618

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : #

Patch Set 3 : #

Total comments: 1
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+122 lines, -41 lines) Patch
M src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc View 1 1 chunk +10 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/heap.cc View 1 1 chunk +2 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
M src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc View 1 1 chunk +11 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/incremental-marking.h View 1 3 chunks +12 lines, -10 lines 0 comments Download
M src/incremental-marking.cc View 1 11 chunks +52 lines, -26 lines 1 comment Download
M src/incremental-marking-inl.h View 1 1 chunk +1 line, -1 line 0 comments Download
M src/spaces.h View 1 5 chunks +21 lines, -2 lines 0 comments Download
M src/spaces.cc View 1 2 chunks +2 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
M src/x64/code-stubs-x64.cc View 1 1 chunk +11 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
Trybot results:
Commit: CQ not working?

Messages

Total messages: 2 (0 generated)
Erik Corry
2 years, 6 months ago (2012-09-24 09:38:20 UTC) #1
Michael Starzinger
2 years, 6 months ago (2012-09-26 08:06:37 UTC) #2
LGTM (with one comment), if it doesn't regress Splay, Spinning Balls or any
other GC benchmark.

https://codereview.chromium.org/10974003/diff/10003/src/incremental-marking.cc
File src/incremental-marking.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/10974003/diff/10003/src/incremental-marking.c...
src/incremental-marking.cc:791: write_barriers_invoked_since_last_step_ <
kIncrementalMarkingThreshold) {
Even if the two thresholds we are comparing against happen to have the same
value, I think we should still use two different constants here (one for
allocation and one for WB counts).
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld cf4c24d