US 7,209,935 B2Grant
Avoiding remembered-set maintenance overhead for memory segments known to be in a collection set
Issue Date:2007-04-24
•6 Claims
•27 Drawing Sheets
Abstract
A garbage collector that employs the train algorithm to manage a generation in a computer system's dynamically allocated heap maintains for each of the generation's cars a respective remembered set that identifies all locations where references to objects in that car have been found by scanning locations identified by the mutator as having been modified. To avoid some of the expense of remembered-set updating, the collector refrains from attempting to add to a remembered set any reference located in a car that will be collected during the next collection increment. Additionally, if no mutator operation will occur before a collection set of one or more cars will be collected, any reference located outside that collection set but referring to an object within the collection set is not recorded in a remembered set but is recorded instead in a scratch-pad list of entries that identify references to collection-set objects that need to be evacuated.
Metadata
Assignee
- Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Inventor
- Alexander T. Garthwaite
Application Information
Application Number:US 10/305,832
Filing Date:2002-11-27
Priority Date:2002-11-27
Art Unit:2161
Classifications
IPC:
G06F12/00G06F17/30
Patent Drawings (27 sheets)
Description
Background of the Invention
[0001] 1. Field of the Invention
[0002] The present invention is directed to memory management. It particularly concerns what has come to be known as “garbage collection.”
[0003] 2. Background Information
[0004] In the field of computer systems, considerable effort has been expended on the task of allocating memory to data objects. For the purposes of this discussion, the term object refers to a data structure represented in a computer system's memory. Other terms sometimes used for the same concept are record and structure. An object may be identified by a reference, a relatively small amount of information that can be used to access the object. A reference can be represented as a “pointer” or a “machine address,” which may require, for instance, only sixteen, thirty-two, or sixty-four bits of information, although there are other ways to represent a reference.
[0005] In some systems, which are usually known as “object oriented,” objects may have associated methods, which are routines that can be invoked by reference to the object. They also may belong to a class, which is an organizational entity that may contain method code or other information shared by all objects belonging to that class. In the discussion that follows, though, the term object will not be limited to such structures; it will additionally include structures with which methods and classes are not associated.
[0006] The invention to be described below is applicable to systems that allocate memory to objects dynamically. Not all systems employ dynamic allocation. In some computer languages, source programs must be so written that all objects to which the program's variables refer are bound to storage locations at compile time. This storage-allocation approach, sometimes referred to as “static allocation,” is the policy traditionally used by the Fortran programming language, for example.
[0007] Even for compilers that are thought of as allocating objects only statically, of course, there is often a certain level of abstraction to this binding of objects to storage locations. Consider the typical computer system 10 depicted in FIG. 1 , for example. Data, and instructions for operating on them, that a microprocessor 11 uses may reside in on-board cache memory or be received from further cache memory 12, possibly through the mediation of a cache controller 13. That controller 13 can in turn receive such data from system read/write memory (“RAM”) 14 through a RAM controller 15 or from various peripheral devices through a system bus 16. The memory space made available to an application program may be “virtual” in the sense that it may actually be considerably larger than RAM 14 provides. So the RAM contents will be swapped to and from a system disk 17.
[0008] Additionally, the actual physical operations performed to access some of the most-recently visited parts of the process's address space often will actually be performed in the cache 12 or in a cache on board microprocessor 11 rather than on the RAM 14, with which those caches swap data and instructions just as RAM 14 and system disk 17 do with each other.
[0009] A further level of abstraction results from the fact that an application will often be run as one of many processes operating concurrently with the support of an underlying operating system. As part of that system's memory management, the application's memory space may be moved among different actual physical locations many times in order to allow different processes to employ shared physical memory devices. That is, the location specified in the application's machine code may actually result in different physical locations at different times because the operating system adds different offsets to the machine-language-specified location.
[0010] Despite these expedients, the use of static memory allocation in writing certain long-lived applications makes it difficult to restrict storage requirements to the available memory space. Abiding by space limitations is easier when the platform provides for dynamic memory allocation, i.e., when memory space to be allocated to a given object is determined only at run time.
[0011] Dynamic allocation has a number of advantages, among which is that the run-time system is able to adapt allocation to run-time conditions. For example, the programmer can specify that space should be allocated for a given object only in response to a particular run-time condition. The C-language library function malloc( ) is often used for this purpose. Conversely, the programmer can specify conditions under which memory previously allocated to a given object can be reclaimed for reuse. The C-language library function free( ) results in such memory reclamation.
[0012] Because dynamic allocation provides for memory reuse, it facilitates generation of large or long-lived applications, which over the course of their lifetimes may employ objects whose total memory requirements would greatly exceed the available memory resources if they were bound to memory locations statically.
[0013] Particularly for long-lived applications, though, allocation and reclamation of dynamic memory must be performed carefully. If the application fails to reclaim unused memory—or, worse, loses track of the address of a dynamically allocated segment of memory—its memory requirements will grow over time to exceed the system's available memory. This kind of error is known as a “memory leak.”
[0014] Another kind of error occurs when an application reclaims memory for reuse even though it still maintains a reference to that memory. If the reclaimed memory is reallocated for a different purpose, the application may inadvertently manipulate the same memory in multiple inconsistent ways. This kind of error is known as a “dangling reference,” because an application should not retain a reference to a memory location once that location is reclaimed. Explicit dynamic-memory management by using interfaces like malloc( )/free( ) often leads to these problems.
[0015] A way of reducing the likelihood of such leaks and related errors is to provide memory-space reclamation in a more-automatic manner. Techniques used by systems that reclaim memory space automatically are commonly referred to as “garbage collection.” Garbage collectors operate by reclaiming space that they no longer consider “reachable.” Statically allocated objects represented by a program's global variables are normally considered reachable throughout a program's life. Such objects are not ordinarily stored in the garbage collector's managed memory space, but they may contain references to dynamically allocated objects that are, and such objects are considered reachable. Clearly, an object referred to in the processor's call stack is reachable, as is an object referred to by register contents. And an object referred to by any reachable object is also reachable.
[0016] The use of garbage collectors is advantageous because, whereas a programmer working on a particular sequence of code can perform his task creditably in most respects with only local knowledge of the application at any given time, memory allocation and reclamation require a global knowledge of the program. Specifically, a programmer dealing with a given sequence of code does tend to know whether some portion of memory is still in use for that sequence of code, but it is considerably more difficult for him to know what the rest of the application is doing with that memory. By tracing references from some conservative notion of a “root set,” e.g., global variables, registers, and the call stack, automatic garbage collectors obtain global knowledge in a methodical way. By using a garbage collector, the programmer is relieved of the need to worry about the application's global state and can concentrate on local-state issues, which are more manageable. The result is applications that are more robust, having no dangling references and fewer memory leaks.
[0017] Garbage-collection mechanisms can be implemented by various parts and levels of a computing system. One approach is simply to provide them as part of a batch compiler's output. Consider FIG. 2's simple batch-compiler operation, for example. A computer system executes in accordance with compiler object code and therefore acts as a compiler 20. The compiler object code is typically stored on a medium such as FIG. 1's system disk 17 or some other machine-readable medium, and it is loaded into RAM 14 to configure the computer system to act as a compiler. In some cases, though, the compiler object code's persistent storage may instead be provided in a server system remote from the machine that performs the compiling. The electrical signals that carry the digital data by which the computer systems exchange that code are examples of the kinds of electromagnetic signals by which the computer instructions can be communicated. Others are radio waves, microwaves, and both visible and invisible light.
[0018] The input to the compiler is the application source code, and the end product of the compiler process is application object code. This object code defines an application 21, which typically operates on input such as mouse clicks, etc., to generate a display or some other type of output. This object code implements the relationship that the programmer intends to specify by his application source code. In one approach to garbage collection, the compiler 20, without the programmer's explicit direction, additionally generates code that automatically reclaims unreachable memory space.
[0019] Even in this simple case, though, there is a sense in which the application does not itself provide the entire garbage collector. Specifically, the application will typically call upon the underlying operating system's memory-allocation functions. And the operating system may in turn take advantage of various hardware that lends itself particularly to use in garbage collection. So even a very simple system may disperse the garbage-collection mechanism over a number of computer-system layers.
[0020] To get some sense of the variety of system components that can be used to implement garbage collection, consider FIG. 3's example of a more complex way in which various levels of source code can result in the machine instructions that a processor executes. In the FIG. 3 arrangement, the human applications programmer produces source code 22 written in a high-level language. A compiler 23 typically converts that code into “class files.” These files include routines written in instructions, called “byte codes” 24, for a “virtual machine” that various processors can be software-configured to emulate. This conversion into byte codes is almost always separated in time from those codes' execution, so FIG. 3 divides the sequence into a “compile-time environment” 25 separate from a “run-time environment” 26, in which execution occurs. One example of a high-level language for which compilers are available to produce such virtual-machine instructions is the Java™ programming language. (Java is a trademark or registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc., in the United States and other countries.)
[0021] Most typically, the class files' byte-code routines are executed by a processor under control of a virtual-machine process 27. That process emulates a virtual machine from whose instruction set the byte codes are drawn. As is true of the compiler 23, the virtual-machine process 27 may be specified by code stored on a local disk or some other machine-readable medium from which it is read into FIG. 1's RAM 14 to configure the computer system to implement the garbage collector and otherwise act as a virtual machine. Again, though, that code's persistent storage may instead be provided by a server system remote from the processor that implements the virtual machine, in which case the code would be transmitted electrically or optically to the virtual-machine-implementing processor.
[0022] In some implementations, much of the virtual machine's action in executing these byte codes is most like what those skilled in the art refer to as “interpreting,” so FIG. 3 depicts the virtual machine as including an “interpreter” 28 for that purpose. In addition to or instead of running an interpreter, many virtual-machine implementations actually compile the byte codes concurrently with the resultant object code's execution, so FIG. 3 depicts the virtual machine as additionally including a “just-in-time” compiler 29. We will refer to the just-in-time compiler and the interpreter together as “execution engines” since they are the methods by which byte code can be executed.
[0023] Now, some of the functionality that source-language constructs specify can be quite complicated, requiring many machine-language instructions for their implementation. One quite-common example is a source-language instruction that calls for 64-bit arithmetic on a 32-bit machine. More germane to the present invention is the operation of dynamically allocating space to a new object; the allocation of such objects must be mediated by the garbage collector.
[0024] In such situations, the compiler may produce “inline” code to accomplish these operations. That is, all object-code instructions for carrying out a given source-code-prescribed operation will be repeated each time the source code calls for the operation. But inlining runs the risk that “code bloat” will result if the operation is invoked at many source-code locations.
[0025] The natural way of avoiding this result is instead to provide the operation's implementation as a procedure, i.e., a single code sequence that can be called from any location in the program. In the case of compilers, a collection of procedures for implementing many types of source-code-specified operations is called a runtime system for the language. The execution engines and the runtime system of a virtual machine are designed together so that the engines “know” what runtime-system procedures are available in the virtual machine (and on the target system if that system provides facilities that are directly usable by an executing virtual-machine program.) So, for example, the just-in-time compiler 29 may generate native code that includes calls to memory-allocation procedures provided by the virtual machine's runtime system. These allocation routines may in turn invoke garbage-collection routines of the runtime system when there is not enough memory available to satisfy an allocation. To represent this fact, FIG. 3 includes block 30 to show that the compiler's output makes calls to the runtime system as well as to the operating system 31, which consists of procedures that are similarly system-resident but are not compiler-dependent.
[0026] Although the FIG. 3 arrangement is a popular one, it is by no means universal, and many further implementation types can be expected. Proposals have even been made to implement the virtual machine 27's behavior in a hardware processor, in which case the hardware itself would provide some or all of the garbage-collection function.
[0027] The arrangement of FIG. 3 differs from FIG. 2 in that the compiler 23 for converting the human programmer's code does not contribute to providing the garbage-collection function; that results largely from the virtual machine 27's operation. Those skilled in that art will recognize that both of these organizations are merely exemplary, and many modern systems employ hybrid mechanisms, which partake of the characteristics of traditional compilers and traditional interpreters both.
[0028] The invention to be described below is applicable independently of whether a batch compiler, a just-in-time compiler, an interpreter, or some hybrid is employed to process source code. In the remainder of this application, therefore, we will use the term compiler to refer to any such mechanism, even if it is what would more typically be called an interpreter.
[0029] In short, garbage collectors can be implemented in a wide range of combinations of hardware and/or software. As is true of most of the garbage-collection techniques described in the literature, the invention to be described below is applicable to most such systems.
[0030] By implementing garbage collection, a computer system can greatly reduce the occurrence of memory leaks and other software deficiencies in which human programming frequently results. But it can also have significant adverse performance effects if it is not implemented carefully. To distinguish the part of the program that does “useful” work from that which does the garbage collection, the term mutator is sometimes used in discussions of these effects; from the collector's point of view, what the mutator does is mutate active data structures' connectivity.
[0031] Some garbage-collection approaches rely heavily on interleaving garbage-collection steps among mutator steps. In one type of garbage-collection approach, for instance, the mutator operation of writing a reference is followed immediately by garbage-collector steps used to maintain a reference count in that object's header, and code for subsequent new-object storage includes steps for finding space occupied by objects whose reference count has fallen to zero. Obviously, such an approach can slow mutator operation significantly.
[0032] Other approaches therefore interleave very few garbage-collector-related instructions into the main mutator process but instead interrupt it from time to time to perform garbage-collection cycles, in which the garbage collector finds unreachable objects and reclaims their memory space for reuse. Such an approach will be assumed in discussing FIG. 4's depiction of a simple garbage-collection operation. Within the memory space allocated to a given application is a part 40 managed by automatic garbage collection. In the following discussion, this will be referred to as the “heap,” although in other contexts that term refers to all dynamically allocated memory. During the course of the application's execution, space is allocated for various objects 42, 44, 46, 48, and 50. Typically, the mutator allocates space within the heap by invoking the garbage collector, which at some level manages access to the heap. Basically, the mutator asks the garbage collector for a pointer to a heap region where it can safely place the object's data. The garbage collector keeps track of the fact that the thus-allocated region is occupied. It will refrain from allocating that region in response to any other request until it determines that the mutator no longer needs the region allocated to that object.
[0033] Garbage collectors vary as to which objects they consider reachable and unreachable. For the present discussion, though, an object will be considered “reachable” if it is referred to, as object 42 is, by a reference in the root set 52. The root set consists of reference values stored in the mutator's threads' call stacks, the CPU registers, and global variables outside the garbage-collected heap. An object is also reachable if it is referred to, as object 46 is, by another reachable object (in this case, object 42). Objects that are not reachable can no longer affect the program, so it is safe to re-allocate the memory spaces that they occupy.
[0034] A typical approach to garbage collection is therefore to identify all reachable objects and reclaim any previously allocated memory that the reachable objects do not occupy. A typical garbage collector may identify reachable objects by tracing references from the root set 52. For the sake of simplicity, FIG. 4 depicts only one reference from the root set 52 into the heap 40. (Those skilled in the art will recognize that there are many ways to identify references, or at least data contents that may be references.) The collector notes that the root set points to object 42, which is therefore reachable, and that reachable object 42 points to object 46, which therefore is also reachable. But those reachable objects point to no other objects, so objects 44, 48, and 50 are all unreachable, and their memory space may be reclaimed. This may involve, say, placing that memory space in a list of free memory blocks.
[0035] To avoid excessive heap fragmentation, some garbage collectors additionally relocate reachable objects. FIG. 5 shows a typical approach. The heap is partitioned into two halves, hereafter called “semi-spaces.” For one garbage-collection cycle, all objects are allocated in one semi-space 54, leaving the other semi-space 56 free. When the garbage-collection cycle occurs, objects identified as reachable are “evacuated” to the other semi-space 56, so all of semi-space 54 is then considered free. Once the garbage-collection cycle has occurred, all new objects are allocated in the lower semi-space 56 until yet another garbage-collection cycle occurs, at which time the reachable objects are evacuated back to the upper semi-space 54.
[0036] Although this relocation requires the extra steps of copying the reachable objects and updating references to them, it tends to be quite efficient, since most new objects quickly become unreachable, so most of the current semi-space is actually garbage. That is, only a relatively few, reachable objects need to be relocated, after which the entire semi-space contains only garbage and can be pronounced free for reallocation.
[0037] Now, a collection cycle can involve following all reference chains from the basic root set—i.e., from inherently reachable locations such as the call stacks, class statics and other global variables, and registers-and reclaiming all space occupied by objects not encountered in the process. And the simplest way of performing such a cycle is to interrupt the mutator to provide a collector interval in which the entire cycle is performed before the mutator resumes. For certain types of applications, this approach to collection-cycle scheduling is acceptable and, in fact, highly efficient.
[0038] For many interactive and real-time applications, though, this approach is not acceptable. The delay in mutator operation that the collection cycle's execution causes can be annoying to a user and can prevent a real-time application from responding to its environment with the required speed. In some applications, choosing collection times opportunistically can reduce this effect. Collection intervals can be inserted when an interactive mutator reaches a point at which it awaits user input, for instance.
[0039] So it may often be true that the garbage-collection operation's effect on performance can depend less on the total collection time than on when collections actually occur. But another factor that often is even more determinative is the duration of any single collection interval, i.e., how long the mutator must remain quiescent at any one time. In an interactive system, for instance, a user may never notice hundred-millisecond interuptions for garbage collection, whereas most users would find interruptions lasting for two seconds to be annoying.
[0040] The cycle may therefore be divided up among a plurality of collector intervals. When a collection cycle is divided up among a plurality of collection intervals, it is only after a number of intervals that the collector will have followed all reference chains and be able to identify as garbage any objects not thereby reached. This approach is more complex than completing the cycle in a single collection interval; the mutator will usually modify references between collection intervals, so the collector must repeatedly update its view of the reference graph in the midst of the collection cycle. To make such updates practical, the mutator must communicate with the collector to let it know what reference changes are made between intervals.
[0041] An even more complex approach, which some systems use to eliminate discrete pauses or maximize resource-use efficiency, is to execute the mutator and collector in concurrent execution threads. Most systems that use this approach use it for most but not all of the collection cycle; the mutator is usually interrupted for a short collector interval, in which a part of the collector cycle takes place without mutation.
[0042] Independent of whether the collection cycle is performed concurrently with mutator operation, is completed in a single interval, or extends over multiple intervals is the question of whether the cycle is complete, as has tacitly been assumed so far, or is instead “incremental.” In incremental collection, a collection cycle constitutes only an increment of collection: the collector does not follow all reference chains from the basic root set completely. Instead, it concentrates on only a portion, or collection set, of the heap. Specifically, it identifies every collection-set object referred to by a reference chain that extends into the collection set from outside of it, and it reclaims the collection-set space not occupied by such objects, possibly after evacuating them from the collection set.
[0043] By thus culling objects referenced by reference chains that do not necessarily originate in the basic root set, the collector can be thought of as expanding the root set to include as roots some locations that may not be reachable. Although incremental collection thereby leaves “floating garbage,” it can result in relatively low pause times even if entire collection increments are completed during respective single collection intervals.
[0044] Most collectors that employ incremental collection operate in “generations” although this is not necessary in principle. Different portions, or generations, of the heap are subject to different collection policies. New objects are allocated in a “young” generation, and older objects are promoted from younger generations to older or more “mature” generations. Collecting the younger generations more frequently than the others yields greater efficiency because the younger generations tend to accumulate garbage faster; newly allocated objects tend to “die,” while older objects tend to “survive.”
[0045] But generational collection greatly increases what is effectively the root set for a given generation. Consider FIG. 6 , which depicts a heap as organized into three generations 58, 60, and 62. Assume that generation 60 is to be collected. The process for this individual generation may be more or less the same as that described in connection with FIGS. 4 and 5 for the entire heap, with one major exception. In the case of a single generation, the root set must be considered to include not only the call stack, registers, and global variables represented by set 52 but also objects in the other generations 58 and 62, which themselves may contain references to objects in generation 60. So pointers must be traced not only from the basic root set 52 but also from objects within the other generations.
[0046] One could perform this tracing by simply inspecting all references in all other generations at the beginning of every collection interval, and it turns out that this approach is actually feasible in some situations. But it takes too long in other situations, so workers in this field have employed a number of approaches to expediting reference tracing. One approach is to include so-called write barriers in the mutator process. A write barrier is code added to a write operation to record information from which the collector can determine where references were written or may have been since the last collection interval. A reference list can then be maintained by taking such a list as it existed at the end of the previous collection interval and updating it by inspecting only locations identified by the write barrier as possibly modified since the last collection interval.
[0047] One of the many write-barrier implementations commonly used by workers in this art employs what has been referred to as the “card table.” FIG. 6 depicts the various generations as being divided into smaller sections, known for this purpose as “cards.” Card tables 64, 66, and 68 associated with respective generations contain an entry for each of their cards. When the mutator writes a reference in a card, it makes an appropriate entry in the card-table location associated with that card (or, say, with the card in which the object containing the reference begins). Most write-barrier implementations simply make a Boolean entry indicating that the write operation has been performed, although some may be more elaborate. The mutator having thus left a record of where new or modified references may be, the collector can thereafter prepare appropriate summaries of that information, as will be explained in due course. For the sake of concreteness, we will assume that the summaries are maintained by steps that occur principally at the beginning of each collection interval.
[0048] Of course, there are other write-barrier approaches, such as simply having the write barrier add to a list of addresses where references where written. Also, although there is no reason in principle to favor any particular number of generations, and although FIG. 6 shows three, most generational garbage collectors have only two generations, of which one is the young generation and the other is the mature generation. Moreover, although FIG. 6 shows the generations as being of the same size, a more-typical configuration is for the young generation to be considerably smaller. Finally, although we assumed for the sake of simplicity that collection during a given interval was limited to only one generation, a more-typical approach is actually to collect the whole young generation at every interval but to collect the mature one less frequently.
[0049] Some collectors collect the entire young generation in every interval and may thereafter perform mature-generation collection in the same interval. It may therefore take relatively little time to scan all young-generation objects remaining after young-generation collection to find references into the mature generation. Even when such collectors do use card tables, therefore, they often do not use them for finding young-generation references that refer to mature-generation objects. On the other hand, laboriously scanning the entire mature generation for references to young-generation (or mature-generation) objects would ordinarily take too long, so the collector uses the card table to limit the amount of memory it searches for mature-generation references.
[0050] Now, although it typically takes very little time to collect the young generation, it may take more time than is acceptable within a single garbage-collection interval to collect the entire mature generation. So some garbage collectors may collect the mature generation incrementally; that is, they may perform only a part of the mature generation's collection during any particular collection cycle. Incremental collection presents the problem that, since the generation's unreachable objects outside the “collection set” of objects processed during that cycle cannot be recognized as unreachable, collection-set objects to which they refer tend not to be, either.
[0051] To reduce the adverse effect this would otherwise have on collection efficiency, workers in this field have employed the “train algorithm,” which FIG. 7 depicts. A generation to be collected incrementally is divided into sections, which for reasons about to be described are referred to as “car sections.” Conventionally, a generation's incremental collection occurs in fixed-size sections, and a car section's size is that of the generation portion to be collected during one cycle.
[0052] The discussion that follows will occasionally employ the nomenclature in the literature by using the term car instead of car section. But the literature seems to use that term to refer variously not only to memory sections themselves but also to data structures that the train algorithm employs to manage them when they contain objects, as well as to the more-abstract concept that the car section and managing data structure represent in discussions of the algorithm. So the following discussion will more frequently use the expression car section to emphasize the actual sections of memory space for whose management the car concept is employed.
[0053] According to the train algorithm, the car sections are grouped into “trains,” which are ordered, conventionally according to age. For example, FIG. 7 shows an oldest train 73 consisting of a generation 74's three car sections described by associated data structures 75, 76, and 78, while a second train 80 consists only of a single car section, represented by structure 82, and the youngest train 84 (referred to as the “allocation train”) consists of car sections that data structures 86 and 88 represent. As will be seen below, car sections' train memberships can change, and any car section added to a train is typically added to the end of a train.
[0054] Conventionally, the car collected in an increment is the one added earliest to the oldest train, which in this case is car 75. All of the generation's cars can thus be thought of as waiting for collection in a single long line, in which cars are ordered in accordance with the order of the trains to which they belong and, within trains, in accordance with the order in which they were added to those trains.
[0055] As is usual, the way in which reachable objects are identified is to determine whether there are references to them in the root set or in any other object already determined to be reachable. In accordance with the train algorithm, the collector additionally performs a test to determine whether there are any references at all from outside the oldest train to objects within it. If there are not, then all cars within the train can be reclaimed, even though not all of those cars are in the collection set. And the train algorithm so operates that inter-car references tend to be grouped into trains, as will now be explained.
[0056] To identify references into the car from outside of it, train-algorithm implementations typically employ “remembered sets.” As card tables are, remembered sets are used to keep track of references. Whereas a card-table entry contains information about references that the associated card contains, though, a remembered set associated with a given region contains information about references into that region from locations outside of it. In the case of the train algorithm, remembered sets are associated with car sections. Each remembered set, such as car 75's remembered set 90, lists locations in the generation that contain references into the associated car section.
[0057] The remembered sets for all of a generation's cars are typically updated at the start of each collection interval. To illustrate how such updating and other collection operations may be carried out, FIG. 8 depicts an operational sequence in a system of the typical type mentioned above. That is, it shows a sequence of operations that may occur in a system in which the entire garbage-collected heap is divided into two generations, namely, a young generation and an old generation, and in which the young generation is much smaller than the old generation. FIG. 8 is also based on the assumption and that the train algorithm is used only for collecting the old generation.
[0058] Block 102 represents a period of the mutator's operation. As was explained above, the mutator makes a card-table entry to identify any card that it has “dirtied” by adding or modifying a reference that the card contains. At some point, the mutator will be interrupted for collector operation. Different implementations employ different events to trigger such an interruption, but we will assume for the sake of concreteness that the system's dynamic-allocation routine causes such interruptions when no room is left in the young generation for any further allocation. A dashed line 103 represents the transition from mutator operation and collector operation.
[0059] In the system assumed for the FIG. 8 example, the collector collects the (entire) young generation each time such an interruption occurs. When the young generation's collection ends, the mutator operation usually resumes, without the collector's having collected any part of the old generation. Once in a while, though, the collector also collects part of the old generation, and FIG. 8 is intended to illustrate such an occasion.
[0060] When the collector's interval first starts, it first processes the card table, in an operation that block 104 represents. As was mentioned above, the collector scans the “dirtied” cards for references into the young generation. If a reference is found, that fact is memorialized appropriately. If the reference refers to a young-generation object, for example, an expanded card table may be used for this purpose. For each card, such an expanded card table might include a multi-byte array used to summarize the card's reference contents. The summary may, for instance, be a list of offsets that indicate the exact locations within the card of references to young-generation objects, or it may be a list of fine-granularity “sub-cards” within which references to young-generation objects may be found. If the reference refers to an old-generation object, the collector often adds an entry to the remembered set associated with the car containing that old-generation object. The entry identifies the reference's location, or at least a small region in which the reference can be found. For reasons that will become apparent, though, the collector will typically not bother to place in the remembered set the locations of references from objects in car sections farther forward in the collection queue than the referred-to object, i.e., from objects in older trains or in cars added earlier to the same train.
[0061] The collector then collects the young generation, as block 105 indicates. (Actually, young-generation collection may be interleaved with the dirty-region scanning, but the drawing illustrates it for purpose of explanation as being separate.) If a young-generation object is referred to by a reference that card-table scanning has revealed, that object is considered to be potentially reachable, as is any young-generation object referred to by a reference in the root set or in another reachable young-generation object. The space occupied by any young-generation object thus considered reachable is withheld from reclamation. For example, it may be evacuated to a young-generation semi-space that will be used for allocation during the next mutator interval. It may instead be promoted into the older generation, where it is placed into a car containing a reference to it or into a car in the last train. Or some other technique may be used to keep the memory space it occupies off the system's free list. The collector then reclaims any young-generation space occupied by any other objects, i.e., by any young-generation objects not identified as transitively reachable through references located outside the young generation.
[0062] The collector then performs the train algorithm's central test, referred to above, of determining whether there are any references into the oldest train from outside of it. As was mentioned above, the actual process of determining, for each object, whether it can be identified as unreachable is performed for only a single car section in any cycle. In the absence of features such as those provided by the train algorithm, this would present a problem, because garbage structures may be larger than a car section. Objects in such structures would therefore (erroneously) appear reachable, since they are referred to from outside the car section under consideration. But the train algorithm additionally keeps track of whether there are any references into a given car from outside the train to which it belongs, and trains' sizes are not limited. As will be apparent presently, objects not found to be unreachable are relocated in such a way that garbage structures tend to be gathered into respective trains into which, eventually, no references from outside the train point. If no references from outside the train point to any objects inside the train, the train can be recognized as containing only garbage. This is the test that block 106 represents. All cars in a train thus identified as containing only garbage can be reclaimed.
[0063] The question of whether old-generation references point into the train from outside of it is (conservatively) answered in the course of updating remembered sets; in the course of updating a car's remembered set, it is a simple matter to flag the car as being referred to from outside the train. The step-106 test additionally involves determining whether any references from outside the old generation point into the oldest train. Various approaches to making this determination have been suggested, including the conceptually simple approach of merely following all reference chains from the root set until those chains (1) terminate, (2) reach an old-generation object outside the oldest train, or (3) reach an object in the oldest train. In the two-generation example, most of this work can be done readily by identifying references into the collection set from live young-generation objects during the young-generation collection. If one or more such chains reach the oldest train, that train includes reachable objects. It may also include reachable objects if the remembered-set-update operation has found one or more references into the oldest train from outside of it. Otherwise, that train contains only garbage, and the collector reclaims all of its car sections for reuse, as block 107 indicates. The collector may then return control to the mutator, which resumes execution, as FIG. 8B's block 108 indicates.
[0064] If the train contains reachable objects, on the other hand, the collector turns to evacuating potentially reachable objects from the collection set. The first operation, which block 110 represents, is to remove from the collection set any object that is reachable from the root set by way of a reference chain that does not pass through the part of the old generation that is outside of the collection set. In the illustrated arrangement, in which there are only two generations, and the young generation has previously been completely collected during the same interval, this means evacuating from a collection set any object that (1) is directly referred to by a reference in the root set, (2) is directly referred to by a reference in the young generation (in which no remaining objects have been found unreachable), or (3) is referred to by any reference in an object thereby evacuated. All of the objects thus evacuated are placed in cars in the youngest train, which was newly created during the collection cycle. Certain of the mechanics involved in the evacuation process are described in more detail in connection with similar evacuation performed, as blocks 112 and 114 indicate, in response to remembered-set entries.
[0065] FIG. 9 illustrates how the processing represented by block 114 proceeds. The entries identify heap regions, and, as block 116 indicates, the collector scans the thus-identified heap regions to find references to locations in the collectionset. As blocks 118 and 120 indicate, that entry's processing continues until the collector finds no more such references. Every time the collector does find such a reference, it checks to determine whether, as a result of a previous entry's processing, the referred-to object has already been evacuated. If it has not, the collector evacuates the referred-to object to a (possibly new) car in the train containing the reference, as blocks 122 and 124 indicate.
[0066] As FIG. 10 indicates, the evacuation operation includes more than just object relocation, which block 126 represents. Once the object has been moved, the collector places a forwarding pointer in the collection-set location from which it was evacuated, for a purpose that will become apparent presently. Block 128 represents that step. (Actually, there are some cases in which the evacuation is only a “logical” evacuation: the car containing the object is simply re-linked to a different logical place in the collection sequence, but its address does not change. In such cases, forwarding pointers are unnecessary.) Additionally, the reference in response to which the object was evacuated is updated to point to the evacuated object's new location, as block 130 indicates. And, as block 132 indicates, any reference contained in the evacuated object is processed, in an operation that FIGS. 11A and 11B (“FIG. 11”) depicts.
[0067] For each one of the evacuated object's references, the collector checks to see whether the location that it refers to is in the collection set. As blocks 134 and 136 indicate, the reference processing continues until all references in the evacuated object have been processed. In the meantime, if a reference refers to a collection-set location that contains an object not yet evacuated, the collector evacuates the referred-to object to the train to which the evacuated object containing the reference was evacuated, as blocks 138 and 140 indicate.
[0068] If the reference refers to a location in the collection set from which the object has already been evacuated, then the collector uses the forwarding pointer left in that location to update the reference, as block 142 indicates. The remembered set of the referred-to object's car will have an entry that identifies the evacuated object's old location as one containing a reference to the referred-to object. But the evacuation has placed the reference in a new location, for which the remembered set of the referred-to object's car may not have an entry. So, if that new location is not as far forward as the referred-to object, the collector adds to that remembered set an entry identifying the reference's new region, as blocks 144 and 146 indicate. As the drawing indicates, the remembered set may similarly need to be updated even if the referred-to object is not in the collection set.
[0069] Now, some train-algorithm implementations postpone processing of the references contained in evacuated collection-set objects until after all directly reachable collection-set objects have been evacuated. In the implementation that FIG. 10 illustrates, though, the processing of a given evacuated object's references occurs before the next object is evacuated. So FIGS. 11's blocks 134 and 148 indicate that the FIG. 11 operation is completed when all of the references contained in the evacuated object have been processed. This completes FIG. 10's object-evacuation operation, which FIG. 9's block 124 represents.
[0070] As FIG. 9 indicates, each collection-set object referred to by a reference in a remembered-set-entry-identified location is thus evacuated if it has not been already. If the object has already been evacuated from the referred-to location, the reference to that location is updated to point to the location to which the object has been evacuated. If the remembered set associated with the car containing the evacuated object's new location does not include an entry for the reference's location, it is updated to do so if the car containing the reference is younger than the car containing the evacuated object. Block 150 represents updating the reference and, if necessary, the remembered set.
[0071] As FIG. 8's blocks 112 and 114 indicate, this processing of collection-set remembered set is performed initially only for entries that do not refer to locations in the oldest train. Those that do are processed only after all others have been, as blocks 152 and 154 indicate.
[0072] When this process has been completed, the collection set's memory space can be reclaimed, as block 164 indicates, since no remaining object is referred to from outside the collection set: any remaining collection-set object is unreachable. The collector then relinquishes control to the mutator.
[0073] FIGS. 12A–12J illustrate results of using the train algorithm. FIG. 12A represents a generation in which objects have been allocated in nine car sections. The oldest train has four cars, numbered 1.1 through 1.4. Car 1.1 has two objects, A and B. There is a reference to object B in the root set (which, as was explained above, includes live objects in the other generations). Object A is referred to by object L, which is in the third train's sole car section. In the generation's remembered sets 170, a reference in object L has therefore been recorded against car 1.1.
[0074] Processing always starts with the oldest train's earliest-added car, so the garbage collector refers to car 1.1's remembered set and finds that there is a reference from object L into the car being processed. It accordingly evacuates object A to the train that object L occupies. The object being evacuated is often placed in one of the selected train's existing cars, but we will assume for present purposes that there is not enough room. So the garbage collector evacuates object A into a new car section and updates appropriate data structures to identify it as the next car in the third train. FIG. 12B depicts the result: a new car has been added to the third train, and object A is placed in it.
[0075] FIG. 12B also shows that object B has been evacuated to a new car outside the first train. This is because object B has an external reference, which, like the reference to object A, is a reference from outside the first train, and one goal of the processing is to form trains into which there are no further references. Note that, to maintain a reference to the same object, object L's reference to object A has had to be rewritten, and so have object B's reference to object A and the inter-generational pointer to object B. In the illustrated example, the garbage collector begins a new train for the car into which object B is evacuated, but this is not a necessary requirement of the train algorithm. That algorithm requires only that externally referenced objects be evacuated to a newer train.
[0076] Since car 1.1 no longer contains live objects, it can be reclaimed, as FIG. 12B also indicates. Also note that the remembered set for car 2.1 now includes the address of a reference in object A, whereas it did not before. As was stated before, remembered sets in the illustrated embodiment include only references from cars further back in the order than the one with which the remembered set is associated. The reason for this is that any other cars will already be reclaimed by the time the car associated with that remembered set is processed, so there is no reason to keep track of references from them.
[0077] The next step is to process the next car, the one whose index is 1.2. Conventionally, this would not occur until some collection cycle after the one during which car 1.1 is collected. For the sake of simplicity we will assume that the mutator has not changed any references into the generation in the interim.
[0078] FIG. 12B depicts car 1.2 as containing only a single object, object C, and that car's remembered set contains the address of an inter-car reference from object F. The garbage collector follows that reference to object C. Since this identifies object C as possibly reachable, the garbage collector evacuates it from car set 1.2, which is to be reclaimed. Specifically, the garbage collector removes object C to a new car section, section 1.5, which is linked to the train to which the referring object F's car belongs. Of course, object F's reference needs to be updated to object C's new location. FIG. 12C depicts the evacuation's result.
[0079] FIG. 12C also indicates that car set 1.2 has been reclaimed, and car 1.3 is next to be processed. The only address in car 1.3's remembered set is that of a reference in object G. Inspection of that reference reveals that it refers to object F. Object F may therefore be reachable, so it must be evacuated before car section 1.3 is reclaimed. On the other hand, there are no references to objects D and E, so they are clearly garbage. FIG. 12D depicts the result of reclaiming car 1.3's space after evacuating possibly reachable object F.
[0080] In the state that FIG. 12D depicts, car 1.4 is next to be processed, and its remembered set contains the addresses of references in objects K and C. Inspection of object K's reference reveals that it refers to object H, so object H must be evacuated. Inspection of the other remembered-set entry, the reference in object C, reveals that it refers to object G, so that object is evacuated, too. As FIG. 12E illustrates, object H must be added to the second train, to which its referring object K belongs. In this case there is room enough in car 2.2, which its referring object K occupies, so evacuation of object H does not require that object K's reference to object H be added to car 2.2's remembered set. Object G is evacuated to a new car in the same train, since that train is where referring object C resides. And the address of the reference in object G to object C is added to car 1.5's remembered set.
[0081] FIG. 12E shows that this processing has eliminated all references into the first train, and it is an important part of the train algorithm to test for this condition. That is, even though there are references into both of the train's cars, those cars' contents can be recognized as all garbage because there are no references into the train from outside of it. So all of the first train's cars are reclaimed.
[0082] The collector accordingly processes car 2.1 during the next collection cycle, and that car's remembered set indicates that there are two references outside the car that refer to objects within it. Those references are in object K, which is in the same train, and object A, which is not. Inspection of those references reveals that they refer to objects I and J, which are evacuated.
[0083] The result, depicted in FIG. 12F , is that the remembered sets for the cars in the second train reveal no inter-car references, and there are no inter-generational references into it, either. That train's car sections therefore contain only garbage, and their memory space can be reclaimed.
[0084] So car 3.1 is processed next. Its sole object, object L, is referred to inter-generationally as well as by a reference in the fourth train's object M. As FIG. 12G shows, object L is therefore evacuated to the fourth train. And the address of the reference in object L to object A is placed in the remembered set associated with car 3.2, in which object A resides.
[0085] The next car to be processed is car 3.2, whose remembered set includes the addresses of references into it from objects B and L. Inspection of the reference from object B reveals that it refers to object A, which must therefore be evacuated to the fifth train before car 3.2 can be reclaimed. Also, we assume that object A cannot fit in car section 5.1, so a new car 5.2 is added to that train, as FIG. 12H shows, and object A is placed in its car section. All referred-to objects in the third train having been evacuated, that (single-car) train can be reclaimed in its entirety.
[0086] A further observation needs to be made before we leave FIG. 12G . Car 3.2's remembered set additionally lists a reference in object L, so the garbage collector inspects that reference and finds that it points to the location previously occupied by object A. This brings up a feature of copying-collection techniques such as the typical train-algorithm implementation. When the garbage collector evacuates an object from a car section, it marks the location as having been evacuated and leaves the address of the object's new location. So, when the garbage collector traces the reference from object L, it finds that object A has been removed, and it accordingly copies the new location into object L as the new value of its reference to object A.
[0087] In the state that FIG. 12H illustrates, car 4.1 is the next to be processed. Inspection of the fourth train's remembered sets reveals no inter-train references into it, but the inter-generational scan (possibly performed with the aid of FIG. 6's card tables) reveals inter-generational references into car 4.2. So the fourth train cannot be reclaimed yet. The garbage collector accordingly evacuates car 4.1's referred-to objects in the normal manner, with the result that FIG. 121 depicts.
[0088] In that state, the next car to be processed has only inter-generational references into it. So, although its referred-to objects must therefore be evacuated from the train, they cannot be placed into trains that contain references to them. Conventionally, such objects are evacuated to a train at the end of the train sequence. In the illustrated implementation, a new train is formed for this purpose, so the result of car 4.2's processing is the state that FIG. 12J depicts.
[0089] Processing continues in this same fashion. Of course, subsequent collection cycles will not in general proceed, as in the illustrated cycles, without any reference changes by the mutator and without any addition of further objects. But reflection reveals that the general approach just described still applies when such mutations occur.
[0090] Although automatic garbage collection tends to make programs more reliable, it can also slow their execution, so it is important to make the garbage-collection operations as efficient as possible. Among the ways of doing so is the above-mentioned use of remembered sets to expedite finding references to collection-set objects. Remembered-set use is beneficial not only in the train algorithm but also in other techniques for incremental collection; other techniques, too, can divide memory into segments for which it maintains remembered sets. But remembered-set maintenance itself imposes a cost. Adding a remembered-set entry is time-consuming because, among other things, it includes testing for relative car location checking for duplicate entries.
Summary of the Invention
[0091] I have found ways to reduce the expense of the updating operation in the train algorithm and other incremental-collection techniques. One way involves, before the updating operation occurs, having the collector identify at least part of what will become the next collection increment's collection set. Then, as the collector scans the mutator-modified regions for references, it omits the attendant remembered-set updating in those cases in which the references thereby found are located in the identified part of the collection set.
[0092] I have recognized that doing so does not compromise the operation of finding reachable objects. If the reference whose location is thereby omitted from a remembered set is not in a reference chain by which an object in the collection set is reachable, no harm is done. If it is in such a chain, on the other hand, it will be discovered during the collection process without its having been recorded in a remembered set. This is because any reference in such a chain is located in an object that is reachable and that will therefore be evacuated. And, since that object is evacuated, it will be scanned for references to collection-set objects. This will cause the omitted reference to be found.
[0093] Another way is applicable particularly to collectors that employ the train algorithm and use scratch-pad lists, associated with respective trains, to list the locations where processing the collection set's remembered-set entries revealed references to collection-set objects. When the collector scans the mutator-modified regions in accordance with this aspect of the invention, it sometimes also omits the attendant remembered-set updating in those cases in which the references thereby found refer to objects in the collection set. Instead, it places entries for those references directly into scratch-pad lists. I have recognized that updating the remembered set and subsequently scanning the location thereby identified can be omitted in cases when no further reference modification will occur.
Brief Description of the Drawings
[0094] The invention description below refers to the accompanying drawings, of which:
[0095] FIG. 1 , discussed above, is a block diagram of a computer system in which the present invention's teachings can be practiced;
[0096] FIG. 2 is, discussed above, is a block diagram that illustrates a compiler's basic functions;
[0097] FIG. 3 , discussed above, is a block diagram that illustrates a more-complicated compiler/interpreter organization;
[0098] FIG. 4 , discussed above, is a diagram that illustrates a basic garbage-collection mechanism;
[0099] FIG. 5 , discussed above, is a similar diagram illustrating that garbage-collection approach's relocation operation;
[0100] FIG. 6 , discussed above, is a diagram that illustrates a garbage-collected heap's organization into generations;
[0101] FIG. 7 , discussed above, is a diagram that illustrates a generation organization employed for the train algorithm;
[0102] FIGS. 8A and 8B , discussed above, together constitute a flow chart that illustrates a garbage-collection interval that includes old-generation collection;
[0103] FIG. 9 , discussed above, is a flow chart that illustrates in more detail the remembered-set processing included in FIG. 8A ;
[0104] FIG. 10 , discussed above, is a block diagram that illustrates in more detail the referred-to-object evacuation that FIG. 9 includes;
[0105] FIGS. 11A and 11B , discussed above, together form a flow chart that illustrates in more detail the FIG. 10 flow chart's step of processing evacuated objects' references;
[0106] FIGS. 12A–12J , discussed above, are diagrams that illustrate a collection scenario that can result from using the train algorithm;
[0107] FIGS. 13A and 13B together constitute a flow chart that illustrates a collection interval, as FIGS. 8A and 8B do, but illustrates optimizations that FIGS. 8A and 8B do not include;
[0108] FIGS. 14A and 14B together constitute a flow chart that describes an advantageous approach to memorializing the locations of newly written references;
[0109] FIG. 15 is a diagram that illustrates the addition of an entry to a remembered set; and
[0110] FIG. 16 is a flow chart that illustrates an improvement to the operation, included in FIG. 11 , of recording reference locations that have changed because the objects containing them have been evacuated.
Detailed Description of an Illustrative Embodiment
[0111] As was indicated above, the present invention is not limited to garbage collectors that employ the train algorithm. And its applicability to train-algorithm-based collectors extends to collectors whose operational sequences depart significantly from the sequence that FIGS. 8–11 above illustrate. Although the sequence there illustrated contemplates executing an entire collection increment in a single interval dedicated only to collection activity, there are ways of spreading a collection increment over multiple intervals. Alternatively, most or all of the collection increment can be performed concurrently with mutator operation, although, as was indicated above, this tends to be somewhat complex. Additionally, although the train algorithm is usually implemented in a multi-generational collector, there is no reason in principle why collectors that use the train algorithm need to employ more than one generation.
[0112] In train-generation embodiments, it is necessary only that the evacuation policy tend to place related objects into common trains and that the trains be checked for any strong references and reclaimed if they have none, as was explained above. Indeed, even in arrangements of the general type exemplified above in connection with FIGS. 8–11 , in which an entire increment is performed in a single collection interval directed to a portion of an old generation, the sequence can differ from the one there illustrated. For example, FIGS. 13A and 13B (together, “FIG. 13”) depict in simplified form an approach that I prefer.
[0113] Whereas it was tacitly assumed above that, as is conventional, only a single car section would be collected in any given collection interval, the FIG. 13 sequence contemplates collecting more than a single car during a collection increment. FIG. 13 also depicts certain optimizations that some of the invention's embodiments may employ. Blocks 172, 176, and 178 represent operations that correspond to those that FIG. 8's blocks 102, 106, and 108 do, and dashed line 174 represents the passage of control from the mutator to the collector, as FIG. 8's dashed line 104 does.
[0114] For the sake of efficiency, though, the collection operation of FIG. 13 includes a step represented by block 180. In this step, the collector reads the remembered set of each car in the collection set to determine the location of each reference into the collection set from a car outside of it, it places the address of each reference thereby found into a scratch-pad list associated with the train that contains that reference, and it places the scratch-pad lists in reverse-train order. As blocks 182 and 184 indicate, it then processes the entries in all scratch-pad lists but the one associated with the oldest train.
[0115] Before the collector processes references in that train's scratch-pad list, the collector evacuates any objects referred to from outside the old generation, as block 186 indicates. To identify such objects, the collector scans the root set. In some generational collectors, it may also have to scan other generations for references into the collection set. For the sake of example, though, we have assumed the particularly common scheme in which a generation's collection in a given interval is always preceded by complete collection of every (in this case, only one) younger generation in the same interval. If, in addition, the collector's promotion policy is to promote all surviving younger-generation objects into older generations, it is necessary only to scan older generations, of which there are none in the example; i.e., some embodiments may not require that the young generation be scanned in the block-186 operation.
[0116] For those that do, though, the scanning may actually involve inspecting each surviving object in the young generation, or the collector may expedite the process by using card-table entries. Regardless of which approach it uses, the collector immediately evacuates into another train any collection-set object to which it thereby finds an external reference. The typical policy is to place the evacuated object into the youngest such train. As before, the collector does not attempt to evacuate an object that has already been evacuated, and, when it does evacuate an object to a train, it evacuates to the same train each collection-set object to which a reference in the thus-evacuated object refers. In any case, the collector updates the reference to the evacuated object.
[0117] When the inter-generational references into the generation have thus been processed, the garbage collector determines whether there are any references into the oldest train from outside that train. If not, the entire train can be reclaimed, as blocks 188 and 190 indicate.
[0118] As block 192 indicates, the collector interval typically ends when a train has thus been collected. If the oldest train cannot be collected in this manner, though, the collector proceeds to evacuate any collection-set objects referred to by references whose locations the oldest train's scratch-pad list includes, as blocks 194 and 196 indicate. It removes them to younger cars in the oldest train, again updating references, avoiding duplicate evacuations, and evacuating any collection-set objects to which the evacuated objects refer. When this process has been completed, the collection set can be reclaimed, as block 198 indicates, since no remaining object is referred to from outside the collection set: any remaining collection-set object is unreachable. The collector then relinquishes control to the mutator.
[0119] FIGS. 14A and 14B (together, “FIG. 14”) illustrate a way of reducing the time required to perform FIG. 13's step 176, in which the results of scanning “dirty” cards are recorded. As blocks 200 and 202 indicate, any reference found in the dirty card is read to determine whether it refers to a location in the young generation. If it does, that fact is memorialized appropriately, as block 204 indicates. The particular memorialization technique is not of concern here, but one possible approach is to use an expanded card table. In such an expanded card table, a multi-byte array would be used to summarize the card's reference contents. The summary may be a list of offsets that indicate the exact locations within the card where references to young-generation objects may be found, for instance, or it may be a list of fine-granularity “sub-cards” within which references to young-generation objects may be found. In any event, the locations of such inter-generational references must be memorialized in some fashion, and block 204 represents such a memorialization step.
[0120] If the result of the block-202 test is that the referred-to object is not in the young generation but rather is (in this two-generation example) in the old generation, then the reference's presence must still be memorialized, too. As was discussed above, a typical way of so memorializing the presence of an (intra-generational) reference to an old-generation object is to install an appropriate entry into a remembered set associated with the car section containing the referred-to object.
[0121] Because of the need to avoid duplicate entries, installing a remembered-set entry can be time-consuming. To appreciate this, consider FIG. 15 , which illustrates one way of adding an entry to a remembered set's reference list. FIG. 15 depicts a memory space 206 allocated to the remembered set's reference list as containing only sixteen reference-sized locations. Let us suppose that the reference of interest occurs at a location whose address is 192E. To determine where to place this address in the memory space 206 allocated to the reference list, the collector applies a hash function 208 to the address. In the illustrated example, the hash function is simply the address's four least-significant bits, whose hexadecimal representation is EH. The collector uses this value as an offset into the list, but it does not immediately store the address at the list location thus identified. It first reads that location's value to determine whether another address has already been stored there. In the FIG. 15 scenario, one already has, as its non-NULL contents indicate.
[0122] Now, if that already-stored address were itself 192E, resulting from an entry made during a previous collection interval, the collector would recognize that a duplicate had occurred, and it would stop its attempt to store the value. But the already-stored address in the illustrated example is instead 477E, so the collector proceeds to the next reference-list location. This location, too, contains a non-NULL value that differs from the address to be stored. Since that location is at the end of the list, the collector proceeds circularly to the beginning of the list and repeats the test there. Again, the location is already occupied, so it proceeds still further, and this time it finds an empty location.
[0123] Even though the collector has not inspected every list entry, it can infer from encountering the empty location that the list has no duplicates of the entry to be added. Any previous attempt to store the same value would have taken the same steps, and the collector would accordingly have encountered the duplicate in attempting to find a space for this address. The collector therefore has simultaneously found a location and avoided duplication.
[0124] Even with the atypically small list that FIG. 15 depicts, though, the task of avoiding duplication has been somewhat involved. And remembered sets can become very large indeed, particularly if the car section contains a “popular” object, one to which a large number of other objects refer. In such a case, the task of adding a remembered-set entry can be quite costly. But I have recognized that, if the reference is in fact in the next collection set, the time-consuming operation of installing a remembered-set entry is unnecessary.
[0125] To understand why this is so, recall that the remembered set's purpose is to keep track of references to objects so that the collector can ultimately determine whether those objects are reachable or, instead, are garbage. Also, consider a reference that is part of a collection-set object and refers to another old-generation object. For such an object, there are two possibilities when the next old-generation collection interval occurs, and neither necessitates recording the reference.
[0126] The first possibility is that the collection-set object containing the reference in question is not referred to by any object outside the collection set (not even by any erst-while collection-set object that has now been evacuated from the collection set because it was potentially reachable). In that case, the object to which the reference in question refers is not reachable through that reference, so failing to record that reference in a remembered set will not prevent a reachable object from being identified as such.
[0127] The second possibility is that the collection-set object containing the reference in question is indeed referred to by a reference located outside of the collection set. In that case, the object referred to by the reference in question is potentially reachable through that reference. But there is still no harm in not having recorded the subject reference's location in a remembered set as part of the card-scanning operation of FIG. 14 . This is because, as was explained above in connection with FIG. 11's step 146, the necessary remembered-set entry will be made as part of the operation of evacuating the object containing the reference. If the determination of FIG. 14's step 210 is that the reference is contained in the next collection set, therefore, there is no harm in refraining from recording the reference and, as FIG. 14 indicates, simply determining whether any references remain.
[0128] If the reference is not located in the collection set, on the other hand, then its existence must be memorialized. Even in this case, though, some savings based on collection-set membership may be realized. To appreciate this, it helps to consider precisely what is meant by the “next” collection set to which block 210 refers, and reference to FIG. 13 is helpful in this context. Recall that the collection interval always begins with the process of scanning dirty cards, as block 176 indicates. As block 178 indicates, the young generation is then collected. As was explained above, the collection interval ends immediately after the young-generation collection in most cases; only an occasional collection interval also includes some old-generation collection, and the collection set is part of only the old generation.
[0129] During collection intervals that will not include old-generation collection, the collector knows the identity of at least one car that will be in the collection set for the next collection interval that includes some old-generation collection. There may also be enough of the input information used by its collection-set-selection routine that it can identify more such cars. So FIG. 14's block-210 determination of whether the reference is in the “next” collection set can be made, although it may be based on only part of what the complete collection set turns out to be.
[0130] But further savings can be realized when the reference-recording operation of FIG. 14 occurs during a collection interval that will include some old-generation collecting. As blocks 212 and 214 indicate, references not in the collection set will be entered in the appropriate remembered sets if the operation of FIG. 14 is being carried out during a collection interval that will include only young-generation collection, not old-generation collection. If the interval will include old-generation collection, on the other hand, the references still have to be recorded, but those that refer to objects in the next collection set do not have to be recorded in the remembered sets.
[0131] To understand why, first recall that the entries in a remembered sets associated with a given car identify locations at which references to objects in that car sections have been found, mostly during previous collection intervals. During intervening mutator intervals, those references may have disappeared. So old-generation collection includes again scanning the locations identified by the remembered-set entries to determine whether they still contain references to collection-set objects. But, if FIG. 14's dirty-card scanning occurs during a collection interval in which a given car will be collected, any reference found during the dirty-card scanning is guaranteed still to be present when that car section is collected. If that reference refers to a collection-set object, therefore, its location does not need to be scanned again. So it does not need to be placed in the car's remembered set; as blocks 215 and 216 indicate, it can go directly to the scratch-pad list associated with the train to which the car containing the reference belongs.
[0132] As block 200 indicates, the operation of scanning for references continues until all references in the dirty section have been found. During most collection intervals, the procedure is finished when they have. In the particular intervals that will include some old-generation collection, however, a mark can be made in an appropriate data structure, as blocks 218 and 220 indicate, to indicate that the dirty card has already been scanned for references to collection-set objects. That data structure can be consulted later, when the collection set's remembered-set entries are being processed. If a collection-set remembered-set entry would otherwise cause the collector to scan a location in that card, it refrains from doing so if the data structure indicates that the card has already been scanned.
[0133] So far, we have considered the “next” collection set to be either the collection set that prevails for the current collection interval or, if the current collection interval includes no old-generation collection, the collection set that will prevail during the next collection interval that does include some old-generation collection. But savings in remembered-set-entry installation can also be realized during an old-generation-collection interval by knowing the identities of cars contained in a subsequent collection interval's collection set.
[0134] Recall in this connection FIG. 11's processing of references that evacuated objects contain. When an object is evacuated, the locations of the references that it contains are moved, too, so a reference-containing object's removal must often be accompanied by adding remembered-set entries reflecting those references' new locations, as FIG. 11's block 146 indicates. But the block-146 operation can be so performed as to avoid such entry addition in some cases, as FIG. 16 illustrates.
[0135] As FIG. 16's blocks 222, 224, 226, and 228 indicate, the new location of a reference contained in an evacuated object is recorded in the summary table if it refers to a young-generation object, and it normally-but not always-is recorded in the appropriate remembered set if it refers to an old-generation object. If it refers to an old-generation object, the collector first determines, as block 228 indicates, whether the evacuated object containing it is now in the collection set that will prevail during the old-generation-collection cycle after the current one. If it is, the collector refrains from recording its location in a remembered set; reasoning similar to that set forth in connection with FIG. 14's block 210 establishes that in such a case no harm results from thus dispensing with remembered-set-entry installation.
[0136] The present invention thus reduces the cost of remembered-set maintenance significantly and thus constitutes a significant advance in the art.
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A method for updating a remembered set in a garbage collector using a train algorithm configured to divide heap memory into a young generation and an old generation and collects a collection set of a plurality of heap memory segments grouped into a plurality of trains during successive collection increments, the method comprising:
prior to performing a remembered set updating operation during a collection increment, using the garbage collector to identify the plurality of heap memory segments in the old generation, wherein the plurality of heap memory segments are part of a collection-set subset which is collected in a next successive collection increment;
performing the next successive collection increment;
identifying a mutator-modified heap memory segment from the plurality of heap memory segments;
scanning the mutator-modified heap memory segment to locate a plurality of references therein;
performing a memorialization operation, wherein the memorialization operation excludes the plurality of references located in the mutator-modified heap memory segment from update in a remembered set;
placing an entry identifying a location of one of the plurality of references from the remembered set into a scratchpad list associated with one of the plurality of trains; and
processing the heap memory segment based on the scratchpad list,
wherein the entry from the remembered set is placed in the scratchpad list without being recorded in the remembered set.
2. A method as defined in claim 1 wherein
before objects are evacuated during a given collection increment, the collection-set subset for the next successive collection increment is identified,
wherein the memorialization operation is performed in response to an evacuation of a reference-containing object during the next successive collection increment and includes recording in the remembered set a location of a reference contained by the reference-containing object,
and wherein no locations of references located in the collection-set subset identified for the next successive collection set are thereby recorded.
3. A computer system comprising:
processor circuitry operable to execute processor instructions; and
memory circuitry, to which the processor circuitry is responsive, that contains processor instructions readable by the processor circuitry to configure the computer system to update a remembered set in a garbage collector using a train algorithm configured to divide heap memory into a young generation and an old generation and collects a collection set of a plurality of heap memory segments grouped into a plurality of trains during successive collection increments, by:
prior to performing a remembered set updating operation during a collection increment, using the garbage collector to identify the plurality of heap memory segments in the old generation, wherein the plurality of heap memory segments are part of a collection-set subset which is collected in a next successive collection increment;
performing the next successive collection increment;
identifying a mutator-modified heap memory segment from the plurality of heap memory segments;
scanning the mutator-modified heap memory segment to locate a plurality of references therein;
performing a morialization operation, wherein the memorialization operation excludes the plurality of references located in the mutator-modified heap memory segment from update in a remembered set;
placing an entry identifying a location of one of the plurality of references from the remembered set into a scratchpad list associated with one of the plurality of trains; and
processing the heap memory segment based on the scratchpad list,
wherein the entry from the remembered set is placed in the scratchpad list without being recorded in the remembered set.
4. A computer system as defined in claim 3 wherein:
before objects are evacuated during a given collection increment, the collection-set subset for the next successive collection increment is identified,
wherein the memorialization operation is performed in response to an evacuation of a reference-containing object during the next successive collection increment and includes recording in the remembered set a location of a reference contained by the reference-containing object,
and wherein no locations of references located in the collection-set subset identified for the next successive collection set are thereby recorded.
5. A storage medium containing instructions readable by a computer system including memory to configure the computer system to operate as a generational, pace-incremental garbage collector configured to:
divide heap memory into a young generation and an old generation;
collect a collection set of heap memory segments during successive collection increments using a train algorithm;
prior to performing a remembered set updating operation during a collection increment, identify a plurality of heap memory segments in the old generation, wherein the plurality of heap memory segments are part of a collection-set subset which is collected in the next successive collection increment;
performs the next successive collection increment;
identifies a mutator-modified heap memory segment from the plurality of heap memory segments;
scan the mutator-modified heap memory segment to locate a plurality of references therein;
perform a memorialization operation, wherein the memorialization operation excludes the plurality of references located in the mutator-modified heap memory segment identified by the garbage collector from update in a remembered set;
place an entry identifying a location of one of the plurality of references from the remembered set into a scratchpad list associated with one of the plurality of trains; and
process the heap memory segment based on the scratchpad list,
wherein the entry from the remembered set is placed in the scratchpad list without being recorded in the remembered set.
6. A storage medium as defined in claim 5 wherein:
before objects are evacuated during a given collection increment, the collection-set subset for the next successive collection increment is identified,
wherein the memorialization operation is performed in response to an evacuation of a reference-containing object during the next successive collection increment and includes recording in the remembered set a location of a reference contained by the reference-containing object,
and wherein no locations of references located in the collection-set subset identified for the next successive collection set are thereby recorded.
Patent Citations (68)
| Patent | Date | Inventor | Cited By |
|---|---|---|---|
| US4724521(A) | 1988-02-01 | Carron et al. | Applicant |
| US4797810(A) | 1989-01-01 | McEntee et al. | Applicant |
| US4912629(A) | 1990-03-01 | Shuler, Jr. | Applicant |
| US4989134(A) | 1991-01-01 | Shaw | Applicant |
| US5088036(A) | 1992-02-01 | Ellis et al. | Applicant |
| US5333318(A) | 1994-07-01 | Wolf | Applicant |
| US5392432(A) | 1995-02-01 | Engelstad et al. | Applicant |
| US5485613(A) | 1996-01-01 | Engelstad et al. | Examiner |
| US5560003(A) | 1996-09-01 | Nilson et al. | Applicant |
| US5687370(A) | 1997-11-01 | Garst et al. | Applicant |
| US5801943(A) | 1998-09-01 | Nasburg | Applicant |
| US5845278(A) | 1998-12-01 | Kirsch et al. | Applicant |
| US5845298(A) | 1998-12-01 | O'Connor et al. | Applicant |
| US5857210(A) | 1999-01-01 | Tremblay et al. | Applicant |
| US5873104(A) | 1999-02-01 | Tremblay et al. | Applicant |
| US5873105(A) | 1999-02-01 | Tremblay et al. | Applicant |
| US5900001(A) | 1999-05-01 | Wolczko et al. | Applicant |
| US5903900(A) | 1999-05-01 | Knippel et al. | Applicant |
| US5930807(A) | 1999-07-01 | Ebrahim et al. | Applicant |
| US5953736(A) | 1999-09-01 | O'Connor et al. | Applicant |
| US5960087(A) | 1999-09-01 | Tribble et al. | Applicant |
| US6021415(A) | 2000-02-01 | Cannon et al. | Applicant |
| US6047125(A) | 2000-04-01 | Agesen et al. | Applicant |
| US6049810(A) | 2000-04-01 | Schwartz et al. | Applicant |
| US6065020(A) | 2000-05-01 | Dussud | Applicant |
| US6098089(A) | 2000-08-01 | O'Connor et al. | Applicant |
| US6148309(A) | 2000-11-01 | Azagury et al. | Examiner |
| US6148310(A) | 2000-11-01 | Azagury et al. | Examiner |
| US6173294(B1) | 2001-01-01 | Azagury et al. | Examiner |
| US6185581(B1) | 2001-02-01 | Garthwaite | Applicant |
| US6226653(B1) | 2001-05-01 | Alpern et al. | Examiner |
| US6243720(B1) | 2001-06-01 | Munter et al. | Applicant |
| US6289358(B1) | 2001-09-01 | Mattis et al. | Applicant |
| US6308185(B1) | 2001-10-01 | Grarup et al. | Applicant |
| US6314436(B1) | 2001-11-01 | Houldsworth | Applicant |
| US6321240(B1) | 2001-11-01 | Chilimbi et al. | Applicant |
| US6353838(B2) | 2002-03-01 | Sauntry et al. | Applicant |
| US6381738(B1) | 2002-04-01 | Choi et al. | Applicant |
| US6393439(B1) | 2002-05-01 | Houldsworth et al. | Applicant |
| US6415302(B1) | 2002-07-01 | Garthwaite et al. | Examiner |
| US6424977(B1) | 2002-07-01 | Garthwaite | Applicant |
| US6434576(B1) | 2002-08-01 | Garthwaite | Applicant |
| US6434577(B1) | 2002-08-01 | Garthwaite | Applicant |
| US6442661(B1) | 2002-08-01 | Dreszer | Applicant |
| US6449626(B1) | 2002-09-01 | Garthwaite et al. | Examiner |
| US6496871(B1) | 2002-12-01 | Jagannathan et al. | Applicant |
| US6529919(B1) | 2003-03-01 | Agesen et al. | Examiner |
| US6567905(B2) | 2003-05-01 | Otis | Applicant |
| US6757890(B1) | 2004-06-01 | Wallman | Applicant |
| US6769004(B2) | 2004-07-01 | Barrett | Applicant |
| US6799191(B2) | 2004-09-01 | Agesen et al. | Applicant |
| US6820101(B2) | 2004-11-01 | Wallman | Applicant |
| US6826583(B1) | 2004-11-01 | Flood et al. | Examiner |
| US6868488(B2) | 2005-03-01 | Garthwaite | Applicant |
| US6892212(B2) | 2005-05-01 | Shuf et al. | Applicant |
| US6928460(B2) | 2005-08-01 | Nagarajan et al. | Applicant |
| US6931423(B2) | 2005-08-01 | Sexton et al. | Applicant |
| US6996590(B2) | 2006-02-01 | Borman et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0032719(A1) | 2002-03-01 | Thomas et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0095453(A1) | 2002-07-01 | Steensgaard | Applicant |
| US2002/0133533(A1) | 2002-09-01 | Czajkowski et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0138506(A1) | 2002-09-01 | Shuf et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0200392(A1) | 2003-10-01 | Wright et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0039759(A1) | 2004-02-01 | Detlefs et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0215914(A1) | 2004-10-01 | Dussud | Applicant |
| EP904055(A1) | 1999-09-01 | Applicant | |
| EP969377(A1) | 2000-01-01 | Applicant | |
| WO188713(A2) | 2001-11-01 | Applicant |
Non-Patent Literature (61)
- Jones and Lins, “Garbage Collection: Algorithms for Automatic Dynamic Memory Management,” 1996, pp. 165-179, Wiley, New York.Applicant
- Paul Wilson, “Uniprocessor Garbage Collection Techniques,” Technical Report, University of Texas, 1994.Applicant
- Hudson and Moss, “Incremental Collection of Mature Objects,” Proceedings of International Workshop on Memory Management, 1992, Springer-Verlag.Applicant
- Grarup and Seligmann, “Incremental Mature Garbage Collection,” M.Sc. Thesis, Available at http://www.daimi.au.dk/˜jacobse/Papers/.Applicant
- Seligmann and Grarup, “Incremental Mature Garbage Collection Using the Train Algorithm,” Proceedings of ECOOP '95, Ninth European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, 1995, http://www.daimi.au.dk/˜jacobse/Papers/.Applicant
- Clark and Mason, “Compacting Garbage Collection can be Fast and Simple,” Software-Practice and Experience, Feb. 1996, pp. 177-194, vol. 26, No. 2.Applicant
- Henry Baker, “List Processing in Real Time on a Serial Computer,” Communications of the ACM 21, Apr. 4, 1978, pp. 280-294.Applicant
- Appel, Ellis, and Li, “Real-time Concurrent Collection on Stock Multiprocessors,” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 1988.Applicant
- Rodney A. Brooks, “Trading Data Space for Reduced Time and Code Space in Real-Time Garbage Collection on Stock Hardware,” Proceedings of the 1984 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming, pp. 108-113, Aug. 1984. Austin, Texas.Applicant
- Herlihy and Moss, “Lock-Free Garbage Collection for Multiprocessors,” ACM SPAA, 1991, pp. 229-236.Applicant
- Bacon, Attanasio, Lee, Rajan, and Smith, “Java without the Coffee Breaks: A Nonintrusive Multiprocessor Garbage Collector,” SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Snowbird, Utah. Jun 2001.Applicant
- James Stamos, “Static Grouping of Small Objects to Enhance Performance of a Paged Virtual Memory,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 155-180, May 1984.Applicant
- David A. Moon, “Garbage Collection in a Large Lisp System,” Conference Record of the 1984 ACM Symposium on LISP and Functional Programming, Austin, Texas, Aug. 1984, pp. 235-246.Applicant
- Robert Courts, “Improving Locality of Reference in a Garbage-Collecting Memory Management System,” Communications of the ACM, Sep. 1988, pp. 1128-1138, vol. 31, No. 9.Applicant
- Wilson, Lam, and Moher, “Effective Static-Graph Reorganization to Improve Locality in Garbage Collected Systems,” Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Jun. 1991, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Applicant
- Lam, Wilson, and Moher, “object Type Directed Garbage Collection to Improve Locality,” Proceedings of the International Workshop on Memory Mangement '92, St. Malo, France, Sep. 1992, pp. 404-425.Applicant
- Chilimbi and Larus, “Using Generational Garbage Collection to Implement Cache-Conscious Data Placement,” International Symposium on Memory Management, Oct. 1998.Applicant
- Lieberman and Hewitt, “A real-time garbage collector based on the lifetimes of objects,” Communications of the ACM, 1983, pp. 419-429, vol. 26, No. 6.Applicant
- David Ungar, “Generation Scavenging: A Non-Disruptive High Performance Storage Reclamation Algorithm,” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Apr. 1984, pp. 157-167, vol. 19, No. 5.Applicant
- Andew W. Appel, “Simple Generational Garbage Collection and Fast Allocation,” Software Practice and Experience, 1989, pp. 171-183, vol. 19, No. 2.Applicant
- Hudson and Diwan, “Adaptive Garbage Collection for Modula-3 and Smalltalk,” in OOPSLA/ECOOP Workshop on Garbage Collection in Object-Oriented Systems, Oct. 1990, Edited by Eric Jul and Niels-Cristial Juul.Applicant
- Hudson and Hosking, “Remembered sets can also play cards,” in OOPSLA/ECOOP Workshop on Garbage Collection in Object-Oriented Systems, Oct. 1993, Edited by Moss, Wilson, and Zorn.Applicant
- Hosking and Moss, “Protection traps and alternatives for memory management of an object-oriented language,” ACM Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Dec. 1993, pp. 106-119, vol. 27, No. 5.Applicant
- Hosking, Moss, and Stefanovic, “A Comparative Performance Evaluation of Write Barrier Implementation,” in OOPSLA ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, Oct. 1992, pp. 92-109, vol. 27, No. 10, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vancouver, BC, ACM Press.Applicant
- Patrick G. Sobalvarro, “A Lifetime-based Garbage Collector for LISP Systems on General-Purpose Computers,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, AITR-1417, 1988.Applicant
- U.S.Appl. No. 10/287,851, filed Nov. 5, 2002, Garthwaite et al.Applicant
- Appleby, Karen, “Garbage Collection for Prolog Based on WAM, vol. 31, Issue 6”, Communication of the ACM, Jun. 1, 1998, 719-741.Applicant
- Arora, et al., “Thread Scheduling for Multiprogrammed Multiprocessors”, Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architecture, Jun. 1998.Applicant
- Barrett. et al., “Using Lifetime Predictors to Improve Memory Allocation Performance”, SIGPLAN'93 Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementaion vol. 28(6) of Notices, Jun. 1993, 187-196, ACM Press, Albuquerque, NM.Applicant
- Blackburn & McKinley, “In or Out? Putting Write Barriers in Their Place”, Jun. 20, 2002, Berlin.Applicant
- Clark, “An Effiecient List-Moving Algorithm Using Constant Workspace, vol. 19 No. 6”, Communications of the ACM, Jun. 1976, 352-354.Applicant
- Flood, et al., “Parallel Garbage Collection for Shared Memory Multiprocessors”, USENIX JVM Conference, Apr. 2001.Applicant
- Goldstein, et al., “Lazy Threads: Implementing a Fast Parallel Call, vol. 37, No. 1”, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, Aug. 1996, 5-20.Applicant
- Hanson, “Fast Alloction and Deallocation of Memory Based on Object Lifetimes”, Software Practice and Experience, Jan. 1990, 20(1):5-12.Applicant
- Harris, “Dynamic Adaptive Pre-Tenuring”, In Proceedings of the Int'l Symposium on Memory Management, Oct. 2000, 127-136.Applicant
- Holzle, Urs, “A Fast Write Barrier for Generational Garbage Collectors”, Workshop on Garbage Collection in Object Oriented Systems, Oct. 1993.Applicant
- Hudson, et al., “A Language—Independent Garbage Collector Toolkit”, Coins Technical Report, Sep. 1991.Applicant
- Hudson, et al., “Training Distributed Garbage: The DMOS Collector”, University of St. Andrews Tech Report, 1997, 1-26.Applicant
- Hudson, et al., “Garbage Collecting the World: One Car at a Time”, ACM SIGPLAN Notices 32, 1997, 162-175.Applicant
- Hudson, et al., “Sapphire: Copying GC Without Stopping the World”, Practice and Experience Special Issue, Date Unknown, JAVA/Grande/Iscope.Applicant
- Liskov, et al., “Partitioned Garbage Collection of a Large Stable Heap”, Proceedings if IWOOOS, 1996, 117-121.Applicant
- Moss, et al., “A Complete and Coarse-Grained Incremental Garbage Collection for Persisten Object Strores”, Proceedings 7th Int'l Workshop on Persisten Object System, 1996, 1-13, Cape May, NJ.Applicant
- Munro, et al., “Incremental Garbage Collection of a Persistent Object Store using PMOS”, 3rd Int'l Workshop on Persistence and Java, 1998, 78-91, Tiburon, California.Applicant
- Nettles, Scott, “Real-Time Replication Garbage Collection”, Avionics Lab, Wright Research and Development Center, 1993, PDDI.Applicant
- Padopoulos, “Hood: A User-Level Thread Library for Multiprogramming Multiprocessors, Thesis: The Uni. of TX”, University of Texas, Aug. 1998, 1-71, Austin.Applicant
- Roy, et al., “Garbage Collection in Object-Oriented Databases Using Transactional Cyclic Reference Counting”, VLDB Journal—The International Journal on Very Large Da Bases, vol. 7, Issue 3, 1998, 179-193.Applicant
- Seligmann, et al., “Incremental Mature Garbage Collection, In the European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming”, M.Sc.Thesis @ http://www.daimi.aau.dk/jacobse/Papers/, 1995.Applicant
- Shuf, et al., “Exploiting Profilic Types for Memory Management and Optimizations. ACM ISBN Sep. 2, 1001”, POPL, Jan. 2002, Portland.Applicant
- Sobalvarro, “A Lifetime-based Garbage Collector for LISP Systems on General-Purpose Computers”, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, Sep. 1988, AITR-1417.Applicant
- Ungar, et al., “Tenuring Policies for Generation-Based Storage Reclamation”, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 1988, 23(11)1-17.Applicant
- Venners, “Garbage Collection, Inside the Java 2 Virtual Machine; Chapter 9”, www.artima.com, Date Unknown, parts 1-18.Applicant
- Wilson, “Uniprocessor Garbage Collection Techniques”, Proceedings of Int'l Workshop on Memory Management, 1992, V. 637.Applicant
- Withington, P.T., “How Real is “Real-Time” GC?”, Symbolics, Inc., Oct. 6, 1991, Burlington, MA.Applicant
- Zee, et al., “Write Barrier Removal by Static Analysis”, OOPSLA '02, Nov. 2002.Applicant
- Zorn, “Segregating Heap Objects by Reference Behavior and Lifetime”, In 8th Int'l Conferenceon Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Oct. 1998, 12-32, San Jose, CA.Applicant
- Zorn, Benjamin, “Barrier Methods for Garbage Collection”, Dept. of Computer Science, Uni. of Colorado, Nov. 1990, 1-37, Boulder.Applicant
- Cheney, “A Nonrecursive List Compacting Algorithm, vol. 13, No. 11”, Communications of the ACM, Nov. 1970, 677-678, Uni. Math. Lab., Cambridge, European Patent Office.Applicant
- Cheng, et al., “Generational Stack Collection and Profile-Driven Pretenuring”, SIGPLAN'98 Conference on Programming Languages Design and Impementation, Jun. 1998, 162-173, ACM PRESS, Montreal, Canada.Applicant
- Lam, et al., “Effective Static-Graph Reorganization to Improve Locality in Garbage Collected Systems”, Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Jun. 1991, Toronto, Canada.Applicant
- Pirinen, Pekka, “Barrier Techniques for Incremental Tracing”, Harlequin Limited, Date Unknown, 20-25, Cambridge, Great Britain.Applicant
- Printezis, et al., “Visualizing the Train Garbage Collector”, ISMM '02, Jun. 20-21, 2002, pp. 50-63, Berlin.Applicant