-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 75
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Why is ImmixAllocator reset twice? #959
Comments
One possible explanation is that it intended to reset |
This was referenced Sep 25, 2023
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 29, 2023
Some plans do nothing when preparing mutators. We add a boolean flag so that we do not create the PrepareMutator work packets in the first place. We also remove the function that prepares Mutator for Immix. It is unnecessary to reset the ImmixAllocator of a mutator when preparing mutator because the mutator's ImmixAllocator is not used during GC. When a GC worker defragments the heap and promotes young objects, it uses the ImmixAllocator instances in ImmixCopyContext or ImmixHybridCopyContext. Fixes: #959
qinsoon
added a commit
to qinsoon/mmtk-core
that referenced
this issue
Oct 3, 2023
Some plans do nothing when preparing mutators. We add a boolean flag so that we do not create the PrepareMutator work packets in the first place. We also remove the function that prepares Mutator for Immix. It is unnecessary to reset the ImmixAllocator of a mutator when preparing mutator because the mutator's ImmixAllocator is not used during GC. When a GC worker defragments the heap and promotes young objects, it uses the ImmixAllocator instances in ImmixCopyContext or ImmixHybridCopyContext. Fixes: mmtk#959
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
In
src/plan/immix/mutator.rs
:The
immix_allocator.reset()
invocation does the following:This method is idempotent, and we don't touch the allocators during GC. Why do we need to reset the
ImmixAllocator
in bothprepare_func
andrelease_func
?p.s. This behaviour exists in JikesRVM, and it has behaved like this ever since Immix was introduced into JikesRVM MMTk.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: