Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Myths and realities: The performance impact of garbage collection

dc.contributor.authorBlackburn, Stephen M.en
dc.contributor.authorCheng, Perryen
dc.contributor.authorMcKinley, Kathryn S.en
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-29T19:32:11Z
dc.date.available2025-06-29T19:32:11Z
dc.date.issued2004en
dc.description.abstractThis paper explores and quantifies garbage collection behavior for three whole heap collectors and generational counterparts: copying semi-space, mark-sweep, and reference counting, the canonical algorithms from which essentially all other collection algorithms are derived. Efficient implementations in MMTk, a Java memory management toolkit, in IBM's Jikes RVM share all common mechanisms to provide a clean experimental platform. Instrumentation separates collector and program behavior, and performance counters measure timing and memory behavior on three architectures. Our experimental design reveals key algorithmic features and how they match program characteristics to explain the direct and indirect costs of garbage collection as a function of heap size on the SPEC JVM benchmarks. For example, we find that the contiguous allocation of copying collectors attains significant locality benefits over free-list allocators. The reduced collection costs of the generational algorithms together with the locality benefit of contiguous allocation motivates a copying nursery for newly allocated objects. These benefits dominate the overheads of generational collectors compared with non-generational and no collection, disputing the myth that "no garbage collection is good garbage collection." Performance is less sensitive to the mature space collection algorithm in our benchmarks. However the locality and pointer mutation characteristics for a given program occasionally prefer copying or mark-sweep. This study is unique in its breadth of garbage collection algorithms and its depth of analysis.en
dc.description.statusPeer-revieweden
dc.format.extent12en
dc.identifier.issn0163-5999en
dc.identifier.scopus8344281495en
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=8344281495&partnerID=8YFLogxKen
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1885/733765424
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSIGMETRICS 2004/Performance 2004: Joint International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systemsen
dc.sourcePerformance Evaluation Reviewen
dc.subjectGenerationalen
dc.subjectJavaen
dc.subjectMark-sweepen
dc.subjectReference countingen
dc.subjectSemi-spaceen
dc.titleMyths and realities: The performance impact of garbage collectionen
dc.typeConference paperen
dspace.entity.typePublicationen
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage36en
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage25en
local.contributor.affiliationBlackburn, Stephen M.; School of Computing, ANU College of Systems and Society, The Australian National Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationCheng, Perry; IBMen
local.contributor.affiliationMcKinley, Kathryn S.; Department of Computer Scienceen
local.identifier.ariespublicationMigratedxPub16684en
local.identifier.citationvolume32en
local.identifier.doi10.1145/1012888.1005693en
local.identifier.pure3095f38d-5008-47ff-b9bf-251788e81ec6en
local.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/8344281495en
local.type.statusPublisheden

Downloads