Commit b43be282 authored by simonmar's avatar simonmar

[project @ 2005-04-22 08:58:36 by simonmar]

Add a comment about possible improvement to the THUNK_SELECTOR
algorithm, from discussion with Ian Lynagh
parent 4e0ab579
......@@ -1996,6 +1996,48 @@ loop:
been BLACKHOLE'd, and should be updated with an indirection or a
forwarding pointer. If the return value is NULL, then the selector
thunk is unchanged.
ToDo: the treatment of THUNK_SELECTORS could be improved in the
following way (from a suggestion by Ian Lynagh):
We can have a chain like this:
sel_0 --> (a,b)
|-----> sel_0 --> (a,b)
|-----> sel_0 --> ...
and the depth limit means we don't go all the way to the end of the
chain, which results in a space leak. This affects the recursive
call to evacuate() in the THUNK_SELECTOR case in evacuate(): *not*
the recursive call to eval_thunk_selector() in
We could eliminate the depth bound in this case, in the following
- traverse the chain once to discover the *value* of the
visit on the way as having been visited already (somehow).
- in a second pass, traverse the chain again updating all
THUNK_SEELCTORS that we find on the way with indirections to
the value.
- if we encounter a "marked" THUNK_SELECTOR in a normal
evacuate(), we konw it can't be updated so just evac it.
Program that illustrates the problem:
foo [] = ([], [])
foo (x:xs) = let (ys, zs) = foo xs
in if x >= 0 then (x:ys, zs) else (ys, x:zs)
main = bar [1..(100000000::Int)]
bar xs = (\(ys, zs) -> print ys >> print zs) (foo xs)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
static inline rtsBool
Markdown is supported
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment