Stop-and-copy garbage collection has been preferred to mark-and-sweep collection in the last decade because its collection time is proportional to the size of reachable data and not to the memory size. This paper compares the CPU overhead and the memory requirements of the two collection algorithms extended with generations, and finds that mark-and-sweep collection requires at most a small amount of additional CPU overhead (3-6%) but, requires an average of 20% (and up to 40%) less memory to achieve the same page fault rate. The comparison is based on results obtained using trace-driven simulation with large Common Lisp programs.
在过去十年中,“停止复制复制”垃圾收集比“标记清除”垃圾收集更受欢迎,因为其收集时间与可访问数据的大小成正比,而不与内存大小成正比。本文比较了随代扩展的两个收集算法的CPU开销和内存需求,发现标记清除收集最多最多需要少量的额外CPU开销(3-6%),但平均需要减少20%(最多40%)的内存,以实现相同的页面错误率。比较是基于使用大型Common Lisp程序的跟踪驱动模拟获得的结果。 P>
机译:标记和清除垃圾收集的硬件加速标记
机译:无需太多清除垃圾收集算法的标记
机译:mark&sweep的无锁并行和并发垃圾收集
机译:有效的预取以清除标记垃圾
机译:主动内存处理器:硬件支持一位参考计数和标记清除垃圾收集。
机译:南非在大型水域中收集蚊虫幼虫的扫网和浸洗方法的功效比较
机译:比较标记和扫描以及停止和复制垃圾收集
机译:比较固态驱动阵列的协调垃圾收集算法。