Scavenging SRTs in scavenge_one

older
Can a TC plugin create new skolem...

Ben Gamari

28 Mar 2018 28 Mar '18

10:49 a.m.

Hi Simon, I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in the FUN and THUNK cases). Can you shed some light on this? Cheers, - Ben

Attachments:

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 487 bytes)

Show replies by date

Ömer Sinan Ağacan

1 May 1 May

5:26 a.m.

I have an idea but it doesn't explain everything; SRTs are used to collect CAFs, and CAFs are always added to the oldest generation's mut_list when allocated [1]. When we're scavenging a mut_list we know we're not doing a major GC, and because mut_list of oldest generation has all the newly allocated CAFs, which will be scavenged anyway, no need to scavenge SRTs for those. Also, static objects are always evacuated to the oldest gen [2], so any CAFs that are alive but not in the mut_list of the oldest gen will stay alive after a non-major GC, again no need to scavenge SRTs to keep these alive. This also explains why it's OK to not collect static objects (and not treat them as roots) in non-major GCs. However this doesn't explain - Why it's OK to scavenge large objects with scavenge_one(). - Why we scavenge SRTs in non-major collections in other places (e.g. scavenge_block()). Simon, could you say a few words about this? [1]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Storage.c#L445-L449 [2]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Scav.c#L1761-L1763 Ömer 2018-03-28 17:49 GMT+03:00 Ben Gamari :

...

Hi Simon,

I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in the FUN and THUNK cases).

Can you shed some light on this?

Cheers,

- Ben

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Simon Marlow

3:10 p.m.

Your explanation is basically right. scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs. Admittedly this is a subtle point that could almost certainly be documented better, I probably just overlooked it. More inline: On 1 May 2018 at 10:26, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...

I have an idea but it doesn't explain everything;

SRTs are used to collect CAFs, and CAFs are always added to the oldest generation's mut_list when allocated [1].

When we're scavenging a mut_list we know we're not doing a major GC, and because mut_list of oldest generation has all the newly allocated CAFs, which will be scavenged anyway, no need to scavenge SRTs for those.

Also, static objects are always evacuated to the oldest gen [2], so any CAFs that are alive but not in the mut_list of the oldest gen will stay alive after a non-major GC, again no need to scavenge SRTs to keep these alive.

This also explains why it's OK to not collect static objects (and not treat them as roots) in non-major GCs.

However this doesn't explain

- Why it's OK to scavenge large objects with scavenge_one().

I don't understand - perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it might not be OK? Large objects are treated exactly the same as small objects with respect to their lifetimes.

...

- Why we scavenge SRTs in non-major collections in other places (e.g. scavenge_block()).

If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

...

Simon, could you say a few words about this?

Was that enough words? I have more if necessary :) Cheers Simon

...

[1]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Storage.c#L445-L449 [2]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Scav.c#L1761-L1763

Ömer

2018-03-28 17:49 GMT+03:00 Ben Gamari :

...
Hi Simon,

I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in the FUN and THUNK cases).

Can you shed some light on this?

Cheers,

- Ben

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Ömer Sinan Ağacan

2 May 2 May

2:03 a.m.

Thanks Simon, this is really helpful.

...

If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

Thanks for pointing this out -- I didn't realize it's returning early when !major_gc and this caused a lot of confusion. Now everything makes sense. I'll add a note for scavenging SRTs and refer to it in relevant code and submit a diff. Ömer 2018-05-01 22:10 GMT+03:00 Simon Marlow :

...

Your explanation is basically right. scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs. Admittedly this is a subtle point that could almost certainly be documented better, I probably just overlooked it.

More inline:

On 1 May 2018 at 10:26, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
I have an idea but it doesn't explain everything;

SRTs are used to collect CAFs, and CAFs are always added to the oldest generation's mut_list when allocated [1].

When we're scavenging a mut_list we know we're not doing a major GC, and because mut_list of oldest generation has all the newly allocated CAFs, which will be scavenged anyway, no need to scavenge SRTs for those.

Also, static objects are always evacuated to the oldest gen [2], so any CAFs that are alive but not in the mut_list of the oldest gen will stay alive after a non-major GC, again no need to scavenge SRTs to keep these alive.

This also explains why it's OK to not collect static objects (and not treat them as roots) in non-major GCs.

However this doesn't explain

- Why it's OK to scavenge large objects with scavenge_one().

I don't understand - perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it might not be OK? Large objects are treated exactly the same as small objects with respect to their lifetimes.

...
- Why we scavenge SRTs in non-major collections in other places (e.g. scavenge_block()).

If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

...
Simon, could you say a few words about this?

Was that enough words? I have more if necessary :)

Cheers Simon

...
[1]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Storage.c#L445-L449 [2]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Scav.c#L1761-L1763

Ömer

2018-03-28 17:49 GMT+03:00 Ben Gamari :

...
Hi Simon,

I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in the FUN and THUNK cases).

Can you shed some light on this?

Cheers,

- Ben

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Ömer Sinan Ağacan

20 Jun 20 Jun

4:20 a.m.

Hi Simon, I'm confused about this code again. You said

...

scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs.

But I think this is not true; scavenge_one() is also used to scavenge large objects (in scavenge_large()), which are scavenged even in major GCs. So it seems like we never really scavenge SRTs of large objects. This doesn't look right to me. Am I missing anything? Can large objects not refer to static objects? Thanks Ömer Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 2 May 2018 Çar, 09:03 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...

Thanks Simon, this is really helpful.

...
If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

Thanks for pointing this out -- I didn't realize it's returning early when !major_gc and this caused a lot of confusion. Now everything makes sense.

I'll add a note for scavenging SRTs and refer to it in relevant code and submit a diff.

Ömer

2018-05-01 22:10 GMT+03:00 Simon Marlow :

...
Your explanation is basically right. scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs. Admittedly this is a subtle point that could almost certainly be documented better, I probably just overlooked it.

More inline:

On 1 May 2018 at 10:26, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
I have an idea but it doesn't explain everything;

SRTs are used to collect CAFs, and CAFs are always added to the oldest generation's mut_list when allocated [1].

When we're scavenging a mut_list we know we're not doing a major GC, and because mut_list of oldest generation has all the newly allocated CAFs, which will be scavenged anyway, no need to scavenge SRTs for those.

Also, static objects are always evacuated to the oldest gen [2], so any CAFs that are alive but not in the mut_list of the oldest gen will stay alive after a non-major GC, again no need to scavenge SRTs to keep these alive.

This also explains why it's OK to not collect static objects (and not treat them as roots) in non-major GCs.

However this doesn't explain

- Why it's OK to scavenge large objects with scavenge_one().

I don't understand - perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it might not be OK? Large objects are treated exactly the same as small objects with respect to their lifetimes.

...
- Why we scavenge SRTs in non-major collections in other places (e.g. scavenge_block()).

If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

...
Simon, could you say a few words about this?

Was that enough words? I have more if necessary :)

Cheers Simon

...
[1]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Storage.c#L445-L449 [2]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Scav.c#L1761-L1763

Ömer

2018-03-28 17:49 GMT+03:00 Ben Gamari :

...
Hi Simon,

I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in the FUN and THUNK cases).

Can you shed some light on this?

Cheers,

- Ben

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Simon Marlow

7:32 a.m.

Interesting point. I don't think there are any large objects with SRTs, but we should document the invariant because we're relying on it. Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs. We did have plans to allocate memory for large dynamic objects using `allocate()` from compiled code, in which case we could have large objects that could be THUNK, FUN, etc. and could have an SRT, in which case we would need to revisit this. You might want to take a look at Note [big objects] in GCUtils.c, which is relevant here. Cheers Simon On 20 June 2018 at 09:20, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...

Hi Simon,

I'm confused about this code again. You said

...
scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs.

But I think this is not true; scavenge_one() is also used to scavenge large objects (in scavenge_large()), which are scavenged even in major GCs. So it seems like we never really scavenge SRTs of large objects. This doesn't look right to me. Am I missing anything? Can large objects not refer to static objects?

Thanks

Ömer

Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 2 May 2018 Çar, 09:03 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
Thanks Simon, this is really helpful.

...
If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

Thanks for pointing this out -- I didn't realize it's returning early

...
!major_gc and this caused a lot of confusion. Now everything makes sense.

I'll add a note for scavenging SRTs and refer to it in relevant code and submit a diff.

Ömer

2018-05-01 22:10 GMT+03:00 Simon Marlow :

...
Your explanation is basically right. scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs. Admittedly this is a subtle point that could almost certainly be documented better, I

when probably

...
...
just overlooked it.

More inline:

On 1 May 2018 at 10:26, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
I have an idea but it doesn't explain everything;

SRTs are used to collect CAFs, and CAFs are always added to the oldest generation's mut_list when allocated [1].

When we're scavenging a mut_list we know we're not doing a major GC,

and

...
because mut_list of oldest generation has all the newly allocated CAFs, which will be scavenged anyway, no need to scavenge SRTs for those.

Also, static objects are always evacuated to the oldest gen [2], so any CAFs that are alive but not in the mut_list of the oldest gen will stay alive after a non-major GC, again no need to scavenge SRTs to keep these alive.

This also explains why it's OK to not collect static objects (and not treat them as roots) in non-major GCs.

However this doesn't explain

- Why it's OK to scavenge large objects with scavenge_one().

I don't understand - perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it might not be OK? Large objects are treated exactly the same as small objects with respect to their lifetimes.

...
- Why we scavenge SRTs in non-major collections in other places (e.g. scavenge_block()).

If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

...
Simon, could you say a few words about this?

Was that enough words? I have more if necessary :)

Cheers Simon

...
[1]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Storage.c#

L445-L449

...
[2]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Scav.c#L1761-L1763

Ömer

2018-03-28 17:49 GMT+03:00 Ben Gamari :

...
Hi Simon,

I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in the FUN and THUNK cases).

Can you shed some light on this?

Cheers,

- Ben

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Ömer Sinan Ağacan

21 Jun 21 Jun

6:42 a.m.

...

Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

Is is not possible to allocate a large STACK? I'm currently observing this in gdb: >>> call *Bdescr(0x4200ec9000) $2 = { start = 0x4200ec9000, free = 0x4200ed1000, link = 0x4200100e80, u = { back = 0x4200103980, bitmap = 0x4200103980, scan = 0x4200103980 }, gen = 0x77b4b8, gen_no = 1, dest_no = 1, node = 0, flags = 1027, <-- BF_LARGE | BF_EVACUTED | ... blocks = 8, _padding = {[0] = 0, [1] = 0, [2] = 0} } >>> call printClosure(0x4200ec9000) 0x4200ec9000: STACK >>> call checkClosure(0x4200ec9000) $3 = 4096 -- makes sense, larger than 3277 bytes So I have a large STACK object, and STACKs can refer to static objects. But when we scavenge this object we don't scavenge its SRTs because we use scavenge_one(). This seems wrong to me. Ömer Simon Marlow , 20 Haz 2018 Çar, 14:32 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...

Interesting point. I don't think there are any large objects with SRTs, but we should document the invariant because we're relying on it.

Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

We did have plans to allocate memory for large dynamic objects using `allocate()` from compiled code, in which case we could have large objects that could be THUNK, FUN, etc. and could have an SRT, in which case we would need to revisit this. You might want to take a look at Note [big objects] in GCUtils.c, which is relevant here.

Cheers Simon

On 20 June 2018 at 09:20, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
Hi Simon,

I'm confused about this code again. You said

...
scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs.

But I think this is not true; scavenge_one() is also used to scavenge large objects (in scavenge_large()), which are scavenged even in major GCs. So it seems like we never really scavenge SRTs of large objects. This doesn't look right to me. Am I missing anything? Can large objects not refer to static objects?

Thanks

Ömer

Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 2 May 2018 Çar, 09:03 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
Thanks Simon, this is really helpful.

...
If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

Thanks for pointing this out -- I didn't realize it's returning early when !major_gc and this caused a lot of confusion. Now everything makes sense.

I'll add a note for scavenging SRTs and refer to it in relevant code and submit a diff.

Ömer

2018-05-01 22:10 GMT+03:00 Simon Marlow :

...
Your explanation is basically right. scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs. Admittedly this is a subtle point that could almost certainly be documented better, I probably just overlooked it.

More inline:

On 1 May 2018 at 10:26, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
I have an idea but it doesn't explain everything;

SRTs are used to collect CAFs, and CAFs are always added to the oldest generation's mut_list when allocated [1].

When we're scavenging a mut_list we know we're not doing a major GC, and because mut_list of oldest generation has all the newly allocated CAFs, which will be scavenged anyway, no need to scavenge SRTs for those.

Also, static objects are always evacuated to the oldest gen [2], so any CAFs that are alive but not in the mut_list of the oldest gen will stay alive after a non-major GC, again no need to scavenge SRTs to keep these alive.

This also explains why it's OK to not collect static objects (and not treat them as roots) in non-major GCs.

However this doesn't explain

- Why it's OK to scavenge large objects with scavenge_one().

I don't understand - perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it might not be OK? Large objects are treated exactly the same as small objects with respect to their lifetimes.

...
- Why we scavenge SRTs in non-major collections in other places (e.g. scavenge_block()).

If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

...
Simon, could you say a few words about this?

Was that enough words? I have more if necessary :)

Cheers Simon

...
[1]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Storage.c#L445-L449 [2]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Scav.c#L1761-L1763

Ömer

2018-03-28 17:49 GMT+03:00 Ben Gamari :

...
Hi Simon,

I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in the FUN and THUNK cases).

Can you shed some light on this?

Cheers,

- Ben

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Ömer Sinan Ağacan

6:58 a.m.

Here's an example where we allocate a large (4K) stack: >>> bt #0 allocateMightFail (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, n=4096) at rts/sm/Storage.c:876 #1 0x00007f3667e4a85d in allocate (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, n=4096) at rts/sm/Storage.c:849 #2 0x00007f3667e16f46 in threadStackOverflow (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, tso=0x4200152a68) at rts/Threads.c:600 #3 0x00007f3667e12a64 in schedule (initialCapability=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, task=0x78c970) at rts/Schedule.c:520 #4 0x00007f3667e1215f in scheduleWaitThread (tso=0x4200105388, ret=0x0, pcap=0x7ffef40dce78) at rts/Schedule.c:2533 #5 0x00007f3667e25685 in rts_evalLazyIO (cap=0x7ffef40dce78, p=0x736ef8, ret=0x0) at rts/RtsAPI.c:530 #6 0x00007f3667e25f7a in hs_main (argc=16, argv=0x7ffef40dd0a8, main_closure=0x736ef8, rts_config=...) t rts/RtsMain.c:72 #7 0x00000000004f738f in main () This is based on an old tree so source locations may not be correct, it's this code in threadStackOverflow(): // Charge the current thread for allocating stack. Stack usage is // non-deterministic, because the chunk boundaries might vary from // run to run, but accounting for this is better than not // accounting for it, since a deep recursion will otherwise not be // subject to allocation limits. cap->r.rCurrentTSO = tso; new_stack = (StgStack*) allocate(cap, chunk_size); cap->r.rCurrentTSO = NULL; SET_HDR(new_stack, &stg_STACK_info, old_stack->header.prof.ccs); TICK_ALLOC_STACK(chunk_size); Ömer Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 21 Haz 2018 Per, 13:42 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...

...
Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

Is is not possible to allocate a large STACK? I'm currently observing this in gdb:

>>> call *Bdescr(0x4200ec9000) $2 = { start = 0x4200ec9000, free = 0x4200ed1000, link = 0x4200100e80, u = { back = 0x4200103980, bitmap = 0x4200103980, scan = 0x4200103980 }, gen = 0x77b4b8, gen_no = 1, dest_no = 1, node = 0, flags = 1027, <-- BF_LARGE | BF_EVACUTED | ... blocks = 8, _padding = {[0] = 0, [1] = 0, [2] = 0} }

>>> call printClosure(0x4200ec9000) 0x4200ec9000: STACK

>>> call checkClosure(0x4200ec9000) $3 = 4096 -- makes sense, larger than 3277 bytes

So I have a large STACK object, and STACKs can refer to static objects. But when we scavenge this object we don't scavenge its SRTs because we use scavenge_one(). This seems wrong to me.

Ömer

Simon Marlow , 20 Haz 2018 Çar, 14:32 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
Interesting point. I don't think there are any large objects with SRTs, but we should document the invariant because we're relying on it.

Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

We did have plans to allocate memory for large dynamic objects using `allocate()` from compiled code, in which case we could have large objects that could be THUNK, FUN, etc. and could have an SRT, in which case we would need to revisit this. You might want to take a look at Note [big objects] in GCUtils.c, which is relevant here.

Cheers Simon

On 20 June 2018 at 09:20, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
Hi Simon,

I'm confused about this code again. You said

...
scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs.

But I think this is not true; scavenge_one() is also used to scavenge large objects (in scavenge_large()), which are scavenged even in major GCs. So it seems like we never really scavenge SRTs of large objects. This doesn't look right to me. Am I missing anything? Can large objects not refer to static objects?

Thanks

Ömer

Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 2 May 2018 Çar, 09:03 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
Thanks Simon, this is really helpful.

...
If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

Thanks for pointing this out -- I didn't realize it's returning early when !major_gc and this caused a lot of confusion. Now everything makes sense.

I'll add a note for scavenging SRTs and refer to it in relevant code and submit a diff.

Ömer

2018-05-01 22:10 GMT+03:00 Simon Marlow :

...
Your explanation is basically right. scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs. Admittedly this is a subtle point that could almost certainly be documented better, I probably just overlooked it.

More inline:

On 1 May 2018 at 10:26, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
I have an idea but it doesn't explain everything;

SRTs are used to collect CAFs, and CAFs are always added to the oldest generation's mut_list when allocated [1].

When we're scavenging a mut_list we know we're not doing a major GC, and because mut_list of oldest generation has all the newly allocated CAFs, which will be scavenged anyway, no need to scavenge SRTs for those.

Also, static objects are always evacuated to the oldest gen [2], so any CAFs that are alive but not in the mut_list of the oldest gen will stay alive after a non-major GC, again no need to scavenge SRTs to keep these alive.

This also explains why it's OK to not collect static objects (and not treat them as roots) in non-major GCs.

However this doesn't explain

- Why it's OK to scavenge large objects with scavenge_one().

I don't understand - perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it might not be OK? Large objects are treated exactly the same as small objects with respect to their lifetimes.

...
- Why we scavenge SRTs in non-major collections in other places (e.g. scavenge_block()).

If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

...
Simon, could you say a few words about this?

Was that enough words? I have more if necessary :)

Cheers Simon

...
[1]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Storage.c#L445-L449 [2]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Scav.c#L1761-L1763

Ömer

2018-03-28 17:49 GMT+03:00 Ben Gamari : > Hi Simon, > > I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It > appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's > not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in > the FUN and THUNK cases). > > Can you shed some light on this? > > Cheers, > > - Ben > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Simon Marlow

2:27 p.m.

When scavenge_one() sees a STACK, it calls scavenge_stack() which traverses the stack frames, including their SRTs. So I don't understand what's going wrong for you - how are the SRTs not being traversed? Cheers Simon On 21 June 2018 at 11:58, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...

Here's an example where we allocate a large (4K) stack:

>>> bt #0 allocateMightFail (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, n=4096) at rts/sm/Storage.c:876 #1 0x00007f3667e4a85d in allocate (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, n=4096) at rts/sm/Storage.c:849 #2 0x00007f3667e16f46 in threadStackOverflow (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, tso=0x4200152a68) at rts/Threads.c:600 #3 0x00007f3667e12a64 in schedule (initialCapability=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, task=0x78c970) at rts/Schedule.c:520 #4 0x00007f3667e1215f in scheduleWaitThread (tso=0x4200105388, ret=0x0, pcap=0x7ffef40dce78) at rts/Schedule.c:2533 #5 0x00007f3667e25685 in rts_evalLazyIO (cap=0x7ffef40dce78, p=0x736ef8, ret=0x0) at rts/RtsAPI.c:530 #6 0x00007f3667e25f7a in hs_main (argc=16, argv=0x7ffef40dd0a8, main_closure=0x736ef8, rts_config=...) t rts/RtsMain.c:72 #7 0x00000000004f738f in main ()

This is based on an old tree so source locations may not be correct, it's this code in threadStackOverflow():

// Charge the current thread for allocating stack. Stack usage is // non-deterministic, because the chunk boundaries might vary from // run to run, but accounting for this is better than not // accounting for it, since a deep recursion will otherwise not be // subject to allocation limits. cap->r.rCurrentTSO = tso; new_stack = (StgStack*) allocate(cap, chunk_size); cap->r.rCurrentTSO = NULL;

SET_HDR(new_stack, &stg_STACK_info, old_stack->header.prof.ccs); TICK_ALLOC_STACK(chunk_size);

Ömer Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 21 Haz 2018 Per, 13:42 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
...
Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS,

...
...
the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

Is is not possible to allocate a large STACK? I'm currently observing

...
gdb:

>>> call *Bdescr(0x4200ec9000) $2 = { start = 0x4200ec9000, free = 0x4200ed1000, link = 0x4200100e80, u = { back = 0x4200103980, bitmap = 0x4200103980, scan = 0x4200103980 }, gen = 0x77b4b8, gen_no = 1, dest_no = 1, node = 0, flags = 1027, <-- BF_LARGE | BF_EVACUTED | ... blocks = 8, _padding = {[0] = 0, [1] = 0, [2] = 0} }

>>> call printClosure(0x4200ec9000) 0x4200ec9000: STACK

>>> call checkClosure(0x4200ec9000) $3 = 4096 -- makes sense, larger than 3277 bytes

So I have a large STACK object, and STACKs can refer to static objects. But when we scavenge this object we don't scavenge its SRTs because we use scavenge_one(). This seems wrong to me.

Ömer

Simon Marlow , 20 Haz 2018 Çar, 14:32 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
Interesting point. I don't think there are any large objects with

SRTs, but we should document the invariant because we're relying on it.

...
Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS,

allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

...
We did have plans to allocate memory for large dynamic objects using

`allocate()` from compiled code, in which case we could have large objects

...
...
Cheers Simon

On 20 June 2018 at 09:20, Ömer Sinan Ağacan

wrote:

...
...
Hi Simon,

I'm confused about this code again. You said

...
scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we

aren't

...
...
traversing SRTs.

But I think this is not true; scavenge_one() is also used to scavenge large objects (in scavenge_large()), which are scavenged even in major GCs. So it seems like we never really scavenge SRTs of large objects. This doesn't look right to me. Am I missing anything? Can large objects not refer to static objects?

Thanks

Ömer

Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 2 May 2018 Çar, 09:03 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
Thanks Simon, this is really helpful.

...
If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they

return

...
...
immediately if !major_gc.

Thanks for pointing this out -- I didn't realize it's returning early when !major_gc and this caused a lot of confusion. Now everything makes sense.

I'll add a note for scavenging SRTs and refer to it in relevant code and submit a diff.

Ömer

2018-05-01 22:10 GMT+03:00 Simon Marlow :

...
Your explanation is basically right. scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs. Admittedly

...
...
...
...
...
subtle point that could almost certainly be documented better, I

...
...
...
...
...
just overlooked it.

More inline:

On 1 May 2018 at 10:26, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote: > > I have an idea but it doesn't explain everything; > > SRTs are used to collect CAFs, and CAFs are always added to the

allocated by this in that could be THUNK, FUN, etc. and could have an SRT, in which case we would need to revisit this. You might want to take a look at Note [big objects] in GCUtils.c, which is relevant here. this is a probably oldest

...
...
...
...
...
> generation's mut_list when allocated [1]. > > When we're scavenging a mut_list we know we're not doing a major GC, and > because mut_list of oldest generation has all the newly allocated CAFs, > which > will be scavenged anyway, no need to scavenge SRTs for those. > > Also, static objects are always evacuated to the oldest gen [2], so any > CAFs > that are alive but not in the mut_list of the oldest gen will stay alive > after > a non-major GC, again no need to scavenge SRTs to keep these alive. > > This also explains why it's OK to not collect static objects (and not > treat > them as roots) in non-major GCs. > > However this doesn't explain > > - Why it's OK to scavenge large objects with scavenge_one().

I don't understand - perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it might not be OK? Large objects are treated exactly the same as small objects with respect to their lifetimes.

> > - Why we scavenge SRTs in non-major collections in other places (e.g. > scavenge_block()).

If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return immediately if !major_gc.

> > Simon, could you say a few words about this?

Was that enough words? I have more if necessary :)

Cheers Simon

> > > [1]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Storage.c# L445-L449 > [2]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Scav.c# L1761-L1763 > > Ömer > > 2018-03-28 17:49 GMT+03:00 Ben Gamari : > > Hi Simon, > > > > I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It > > appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's > > not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in > > the FUN and THUNK cases). > > > > Can you shed some light on this? > > > > Cheers, > > > > - Ben > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > ghc-devs@haskell.org > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Ömer Sinan Ağacan

22 Jun 22 Jun

2:54 a.m.

OK, finally everything makes sense I think. I was very confused by the code and previous emails where you said:

...

Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

I was pointing out that this is not entirely correct; we allocate large stacks. But as you say scavenge_one() handles that case by scavenging stack SRTs. So in summary: - scavenge_one() is called to scavenge mut_lists and large objects. - When scavenging mut_lists no need to scaveng SRTs (see previous emails) - When scavenging large objects we know that certain objects can't be large (i.e. FUN, THUNK), but some others can (i.e. STACK), so scavenge_one() scavenges stack SRTs but does not scavenge FUN and THUNK SRTs. Ömer Simon Marlow , 21 Haz 2018 Per, 21:27 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...

When scavenge_one() sees a STACK, it calls scavenge_stack() which traverses the stack frames, including their SRTs.

So I don't understand what's going wrong for you - how are the SRTs not being traversed?

Cheers Simon

On 21 June 2018 at 11:58, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
Here's an example where we allocate a large (4K) stack:

>>> bt #0 allocateMightFail (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, n=4096) at rts/sm/Storage.c:876 #1 0x00007f3667e4a85d in allocate (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, n=4096) at rts/sm/Storage.c:849 #2 0x00007f3667e16f46 in threadStackOverflow (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, tso=0x4200152a68) at rts/Threads.c:600 #3 0x00007f3667e12a64 in schedule (initialCapability=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, task=0x78c970) at rts/Schedule.c:520 #4 0x00007f3667e1215f in scheduleWaitThread (tso=0x4200105388, ret=0x0, pcap=0x7ffef40dce78) at rts/Schedule.c:2533 #5 0x00007f3667e25685 in rts_evalLazyIO (cap=0x7ffef40dce78, p=0x736ef8, ret=0x0) at rts/RtsAPI.c:530 #6 0x00007f3667e25f7a in hs_main (argc=16, argv=0x7ffef40dd0a8, main_closure=0x736ef8, rts_config=...) t rts/RtsMain.c:72 #7 0x00000000004f738f in main ()

This is based on an old tree so source locations may not be correct, it's this code in threadStackOverflow():

// Charge the current thread for allocating stack. Stack usage is // non-deterministic, because the chunk boundaries might vary from // run to run, but accounting for this is better than not // accounting for it, since a deep recursion will otherwise not be // subject to allocation limits. cap->r.rCurrentTSO = tso; new_stack = (StgStack*) allocate(cap, chunk_size); cap->r.rCurrentTSO = NULL;

SET_HDR(new_stack, &stg_STACK_info, old_stack->header.prof.ccs); TICK_ALLOC_STACK(chunk_size);

Ömer Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 21 Haz 2018 Per, 13:42 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
...
Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

Is is not possible to allocate a large STACK? I'm currently observing this in gdb:

>>> call *Bdescr(0x4200ec9000) $2 = { start = 0x4200ec9000, free = 0x4200ed1000, link = 0x4200100e80, u = { back = 0x4200103980, bitmap = 0x4200103980, scan = 0x4200103980 }, gen = 0x77b4b8, gen_no = 1, dest_no = 1, node = 0, flags = 1027, <-- BF_LARGE | BF_EVACUTED | ... blocks = 8, _padding = {[0] = 0, [1] = 0, [2] = 0} }

>>> call printClosure(0x4200ec9000) 0x4200ec9000: STACK

>>> call checkClosure(0x4200ec9000) $3 = 4096 -- makes sense, larger than 3277 bytes

So I have a large STACK object, and STACKs can refer to static objects. But when we scavenge this object we don't scavenge its SRTs because we use scavenge_one(). This seems wrong to me.

Ömer

Simon Marlow , 20 Haz 2018 Çar, 14:32 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
Interesting point. I don't think there are any large objects with SRTs, but we should document the invariant because we're relying on it.

Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

We did have plans to allocate memory for large dynamic objects using `allocate()` from compiled code, in which case we could have large objects that could be THUNK, FUN, etc. and could have an SRT, in which case we would need to revisit this. You might want to take a look at Note [big objects] in GCUtils.c, which is relevant here.

Cheers Simon

On 20 June 2018 at 09:20, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
Hi Simon,

I'm confused about this code again. You said

...
scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs.

But I think this is not true; scavenge_one() is also used to scavenge large objects (in scavenge_large()), which are scavenged even in major GCs. So it seems like we never really scavenge SRTs of large objects. This doesn't look right to me. Am I missing anything? Can large objects not refer to static objects?

Thanks

Ömer

Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 2 May 2018 Çar, 09:03 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
Thanks Simon, this is really helpful.

> If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return > immediately if !major_gc.

Thanks for pointing this out -- I didn't realize it's returning early when !major_gc and this caused a lot of confusion. Now everything makes sense.

I'll add a note for scavenging SRTs and refer to it in relevant code and submit a diff.

Ömer

2018-05-01 22:10 GMT+03:00 Simon Marlow : > Your explanation is basically right. scavenge_one() is only used for a > non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs. Admittedly this is a > subtle point that could almost certainly be documented better, I probably > just overlooked it. > > More inline: > > On 1 May 2018 at 10:26, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote: >> >> I have an idea but it doesn't explain everything; >> >> SRTs are used to collect CAFs, and CAFs are always added to the oldest >> generation's mut_list when allocated [1]. >> >> When we're scavenging a mut_list we know we're not doing a major GC, and >> because mut_list of oldest generation has all the newly allocated CAFs, >> which >> will be scavenged anyway, no need to scavenge SRTs for those. >> >> Also, static objects are always evacuated to the oldest gen [2], so any >> CAFs >> that are alive but not in the mut_list of the oldest gen will stay alive >> after >> a non-major GC, again no need to scavenge SRTs to keep these alive. >> >> This also explains why it's OK to not collect static objects (and not >> treat >> them as roots) in non-major GCs. >> >> However this doesn't explain >> >> - Why it's OK to scavenge large objects with scavenge_one(). > > > I don't understand - perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it might > not be OK? Large objects are treated exactly the same as small objects with > respect to their lifetimes. > >> >> - Why we scavenge SRTs in non-major collections in other places (e.g. >> scavenge_block()). > > > If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return > immediately if !major_gc. > >> >> Simon, could you say a few words about this? > > > Was that enough words? I have more if necessary :) > > Cheers > Simon > > >> >> >> [1]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Storage.c#L445-L449 >> [2]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Scav.c#L1761-L1763 >> >> Ömer >> >> 2018-03-28 17:49 GMT+03:00 Ben Gamari : >> > Hi Simon, >> > >> > I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It >> > appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's >> > not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in >> > the FUN and THUNK cases). >> > >> > Can you shed some light on this? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > - Ben >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ghc-devs mailing list >> > ghc-devs@haskell.org >> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> ghc-devs@haskell.org >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >

Ömer Sinan Ağacan

26 Jun 26 Jun

9:53 a.m.

Documented in https://phabricator.haskell.org/D4893 Ömer Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 22 Haz 2018 Cum, 09:54 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...

OK, finally everything makes sense I think. I was very confused by the code and previous emails where you said:

...
Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

I was pointing out that this is not entirely correct; we allocate large stacks. But as you say scavenge_one() handles that case by scavenging stack SRTs.

So in summary:

- scavenge_one() is called to scavenge mut_lists and large objects. - When scavenging mut_lists no need to scaveng SRTs (see previous emails) - When scavenging large objects we know that certain objects can't be large (i.e. FUN, THUNK), but some others can (i.e. STACK), so scavenge_one() scavenges stack SRTs but does not scavenge FUN and THUNK SRTs.

Ömer

Simon Marlow , 21 Haz 2018 Per, 21:27 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
When scavenge_one() sees a STACK, it calls scavenge_stack() which traverses the stack frames, including their SRTs.

So I don't understand what's going wrong for you - how are the SRTs not being traversed?

Cheers Simon

On 21 June 2018 at 11:58, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
Here's an example where we allocate a large (4K) stack:

>>> bt #0 allocateMightFail (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, n=4096) at rts/sm/Storage.c:876 #1 0x00007f3667e4a85d in allocate (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, n=4096) at rts/sm/Storage.c:849 #2 0x00007f3667e16f46 in threadStackOverflow (cap=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, tso=0x4200152a68) at rts/Threads.c:600 #3 0x00007f3667e12a64 in schedule (initialCapability=0x7f366808cfc0 <MainCapability>, task=0x78c970) at rts/Schedule.c:520 #4 0x00007f3667e1215f in scheduleWaitThread (tso=0x4200105388, ret=0x0, pcap=0x7ffef40dce78) at rts/Schedule.c:2533 #5 0x00007f3667e25685 in rts_evalLazyIO (cap=0x7ffef40dce78, p=0x736ef8, ret=0x0) at rts/RtsAPI.c:530 #6 0x00007f3667e25f7a in hs_main (argc=16, argv=0x7ffef40dd0a8, main_closure=0x736ef8, rts_config=...) t rts/RtsMain.c:72 #7 0x00000000004f738f in main ()

This is based on an old tree so source locations may not be correct, it's this code in threadStackOverflow():

// Charge the current thread for allocating stack. Stack usage is // non-deterministic, because the chunk boundaries might vary from // run to run, but accounting for this is better than not // accounting for it, since a deep recursion will otherwise not be // subject to allocation limits. cap->r.rCurrentTSO = tso; new_stack = (StgStack*) allocate(cap, chunk_size); cap->r.rCurrentTSO = NULL;

SET_HDR(new_stack, &stg_STACK_info, old_stack->header.prof.ccs); TICK_ALLOC_STACK(chunk_size);

Ömer Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 21 Haz 2018 Per, 13:42 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
...
Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

Is is not possible to allocate a large STACK? I'm currently observing this in gdb:

>>> call *Bdescr(0x4200ec9000) $2 = { start = 0x4200ec9000, free = 0x4200ed1000, link = 0x4200100e80, u = { back = 0x4200103980, bitmap = 0x4200103980, scan = 0x4200103980 }, gen = 0x77b4b8, gen_no = 1, dest_no = 1, node = 0, flags = 1027, <-- BF_LARGE | BF_EVACUTED | ... blocks = 8, _padding = {[0] = 0, [1] = 0, [2] = 0} }

>>> call printClosure(0x4200ec9000) 0x4200ec9000: STACK

>>> call checkClosure(0x4200ec9000) $3 = 4096 -- makes sense, larger than 3277 bytes

So I have a large STACK object, and STACKs can refer to static objects. But when we scavenge this object we don't scavenge its SRTs because we use scavenge_one(). This seems wrong to me.

Ömer

Simon Marlow , 20 Haz 2018 Çar, 14:32 tarihinde şunu yazdı:

...
Interesting point. I don't think there are any large objects with SRTs, but we should document the invariant because we're relying on it.

Large objects can only be primitive objects, like MUT_ARR_PTRS, allocated by the RTS, and none of these have SRTs.

We did have plans to allocate memory for large dynamic objects using `allocate()` from compiled code, in which case we could have large objects that could be THUNK, FUN, etc. and could have an SRT, in which case we would need to revisit this. You might want to take a look at Note [big objects] in GCUtils.c, which is relevant here.

Cheers Simon

On 20 June 2018 at 09:20, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote:

...
Hi Simon,

I'm confused about this code again. You said

> scavenge_one() is only used for a non-major collection, where we aren't > traversing SRTs.

But I think this is not true; scavenge_one() is also used to scavenge large objects (in scavenge_large()), which are scavenged even in major GCs. So it seems like we never really scavenge SRTs of large objects. This doesn't look right to me. Am I missing anything? Can large objects not refer to static objects?

Thanks

Ömer

Ömer Sinan Ağacan , 2 May 2018 Çar, 09:03 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > > Thanks Simon, this is really helpful. > > > If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return > > immediately if !major_gc. > > Thanks for pointing this out -- I didn't realize it's returning early when > !major_gc and this caused a lot of confusion. Now everything makes sense. > > I'll add a note for scavenging SRTs and refer to it in relevant code and submit > a diff. > > Ömer > > 2018-05-01 22:10 GMT+03:00 Simon Marlow : > > Your explanation is basically right. scavenge_one() is only used for a > > non-major collection, where we aren't traversing SRTs. Admittedly this is a > > subtle point that could almost certainly be documented better, I probably > > just overlooked it. > > > > More inline: > > > > On 1 May 2018 at 10:26, Ömer Sinan Ağacan wrote: > >> > >> I have an idea but it doesn't explain everything; > >> > >> SRTs are used to collect CAFs, and CAFs are always added to the oldest > >> generation's mut_list when allocated [1]. > >> > >> When we're scavenging a mut_list we know we're not doing a major GC, and > >> because mut_list of oldest generation has all the newly allocated CAFs, > >> which > >> will be scavenged anyway, no need to scavenge SRTs for those. > >> > >> Also, static objects are always evacuated to the oldest gen [2], so any > >> CAFs > >> that are alive but not in the mut_list of the oldest gen will stay alive > >> after > >> a non-major GC, again no need to scavenge SRTs to keep these alive. > >> > >> This also explains why it's OK to not collect static objects (and not > >> treat > >> them as roots) in non-major GCs. > >> > >> However this doesn't explain > >> > >> - Why it's OK to scavenge large objects with scavenge_one(). > > > > > > I don't understand - perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it might > > not be OK? Large objects are treated exactly the same as small objects with > > respect to their lifetimes. > > > >> > >> - Why we scavenge SRTs in non-major collections in other places (e.g. > >> scavenge_block()). > > > > > > If you look at scavenge_fun_srt() and co, you'll see that they return > > immediately if !major_gc. > > > >> > >> Simon, could you say a few words about this? > > > > > > Was that enough words? I have more if necessary :) > > > > Cheers > > Simon > > > > > >> > >> > >> [1]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Storage.c#L445-L449 > >> [2]: https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/rts/sm/Scav.c#L1761-L1763 > >> > >> Ömer > >> > >> 2018-03-28 17:49 GMT+03:00 Ben Gamari : > >> > Hi Simon, > >> > > >> > I'm a bit confused by scavenge_one; namely it doesn't scavenge SRTs. It > >> > appears that it is primarily used for remembered set entries but it's > >> > not at all clear why this means that we can safely ignore SRTs (e.g. in > >> > the FUN and THUNK cases). > >> > > >> > Can you shed some light on this? > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > > >> > - Ben > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > ghc-devs mailing list > >> > ghc-devs@haskell.org > >> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ghc-devs mailing list > >> ghc-devs@haskell.org > >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > >

2520

Age (days ago)

2610

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

10 comments

3 participants

participants (3)

Ben Gamari
Simon Marlow
Ömer Sinan Ağacan

Scavenging SRTs in scavenge_one

tags

participants (3)