[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Binarytrees benchmark results
- From: Alex Queiroz <asandroq@...>
- Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:52:05 +0000
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Linker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 22:30, Mike Pall <email@example.com> wrote:
>> But neither is a substitute for a bump allocator. Unfortunately,
>> using such an allocator implies the need for a moving GC. The
>> current Lua GC is non-moving. Revising this fundamental design
>> choice is very complicated while keeping the current Lua/C API.
> I think that a moving GC is bad for CPU which has a multi-cache modern
> architecture .
One single factor will hardly decide if a moving GC or a
mark-and-sweep one is better. Point in case, the generational GC
allocates memory faster.