From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1208BC69 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 14:15:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from furbychan.cocan.org (furbychan.cocan.org [80.68.91.176]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4UCF3TQ013171 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 14:15:03 +0200 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1HtN4w-00089E-00 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 13:15:02 +0100 Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:15:02 +0100 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Faking concurrency using Unix forks and pipes Message-ID: <20070530121502.GC24085@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <200705300442.59906.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <200705300902.06760.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20070530181300.d4179bca.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> <200705300954.32784.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705300954.32784.jon@ffconsultancy.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 465D6AC7.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; forks:01 0100,:01 marshalling:01 traversing:01 heap:01 heap:01 unix:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 gcs:01 data:02 concurrency:02 deallocate:03 concurrent:03 On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:54:32AM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Wednesday 30 May 2007 09:13:00 Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > How much does a concurrent GC actually buy in comparison to > > multiple processes each with their own GC and a robust way > > of passing data between processes? > > 1. Shared memory and locks should be much faster for synchronization than > marshalling between processes. > > 2. Forking results in multiple GCs redundantly traversing the same heap and, > worst case, it may end up copying the entire heap in the child process in > order to deallocate it. Fixed: http://merjis.com/developers/ancient Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat