Re: Proposal: block-based vector allocator

[Dmitry Antipov]

On 12/07/2011 08:30 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> I'm not convinced your result is because your code does better than
> malloc.  Instead I expect it's because it avoids the mem_node overhead.
> Recompiling and trying again without conservative stack scanning should
> factor out this effect.

Without conservative stack scanning, it works at least not worse
(I believe we should ignore the differences less than, say, 0.5%).
But, as I have said, there are further improvements possible.

> You can't do compaction without changing the Lisp_Vector's layout
> (adding an indirection, as is done for Lisp_Strings).

I know, and I'm just saying that my proposal contains nothing which
makes compaction impossible or too tricky.

> I thought we agreed that GC performance is not a concern here.
> Of course, every change to the layout can impact the performance of the
> GC.  Have you measured the impact of your code on GC performance?

Not yet. But will do it, of course.

Dmitry