Call for Interest: Clojure (or Lisp?) Code Camp with BLM focus

[Marco Antoniotti]

Don't the latest incarnations of ECL use the Bohem GC?

Just asking...

MA

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

________________________________
From: pro <pro-bounces at common-lisp.net> on behalf of Martin Cracauer <cracauer at cons.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 6:25:50 PM
To: Discussion list for Common Lisp professionals <pro at common-lisp.net>
Subject: Re: Call for Interest: Clojure (or Lisp?) Code Camp with BLM focus

Pascal Costanza wrote on Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:17:56PM +0100:
>
> > Parallel GC is no problem and implemented.
>
>
> Which CL implementations have a parallel GC?

Clasp (via Boehm GC and MPS).

I thought SBCL was there, but I just checked, not yet.  I think Google
is pushing for a parallel GC instead, because of response times to
their production monitoring.

Another untapped source of performance is userfaultfd(2) in the Linux
kernel.  It allows those GCs that implement a write barrier using
page protections SIGSEGV to use the faster userfaultfd interface
instead (as opposed to those using a bitmap).  This won't help
concurrent GC, but parallel GC would benefit even more than
single-thread GC because it uses faster system calls.
Proof of concept is here:
https://www.cons.org/cracauer/cracauer-userfaultfd.html

Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer at cons.org>   http://www.cons.org/cracauer/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/pro/attachments/20201203/3a1185b2/attachment-0001.htm>