Chris,
There are a few things here.
- There are different levels of latency-sensitivity. The system I work on
at Facebook is latency sensitive and we have no problem with the GC (after
we implemented a few optimisations and did some tuning). But we're ok with
pauses up to 100ms or so, and our average pause time is <50ms with 100MB
live data on large multicore machines. There's probably still scope to
reduce that some more.
- Thread-local heaps don't fix the pause-time issue. They reduce the pause
time for a local collection but have no impact on the global collection,
which is still unbounded in size.
- I absolutely agree we should have incremental or concurrent collection.
It's a big project though. Most of the technology is fairly well
understood (just read
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1420082795/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=P08F0WS4W6Q6Q6K8CSCF)
and I have some vague plans for what direction to take.
- The issue is not so much maintaining multiple GCs. We already have 3 GCs
(one of which is experimental and unsupported). The issue is more that a
new kind of GC has non-local implications because it affects read- and
write-barriers, and making a bad tradeoff can penalize the performance of
all code. Perhaps you're willing to give up 10% of performance to get
guaranteed 10ms pause times, but can we impose that 10% on everyone? If
not, are you willing to recompile GHC and all your libraries?
Cheers
Simon
On 17 October 2016 at 18:08, Christopher Allen
It'd be unfortunate if more companies trying out Haskell came to the same result: https://blog.pusher.com/latency-working-set-ghc-gc- pick-two/#comment-2866985345 (They gave up and rewrote the service in Golang)
Most of the state of the art I'm aware of (such as from Azul Systems) is from when I was using a JVM language, which isn't necessarily applicable for GHC.
I understand Marlow's thread-local heaps experiment circa 7.2/7.4 was abandoned because it penalized performance too much. Does the impression that there isn't the labor to maintain two GCs still hold? It seems like thread-local heaps would be pervasive.
Does anyone know what could be done in GHC itself to improve this situation? Stop-the-world is pretty painful when the otherwise excellent concurrency primitives are much of why you're using Haskell.
--- Chris Allen _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs