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

[Daniel Kochmański]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, 3 December 2020 19:28, Marco Antoniotti <marco.antoniotti at unimib.it> wrote:

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

They do, we plan to resurrect the homegrown gc as an alternative though.


Regards,
Daniel


>
> Just asking...
>
> MA
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
> 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/