A static closure is a heap object that is allocated statically, once and for all, at compile time. It lives at a fixed address.
Example: reverse_closure, the static, top level closure object for the function reverse. If you evaluate map reverse xs, then it's reverse_closure that is passed as the first argument to map.
Some static closures are thunks; we call these CAFs, or Constant Applicative Forms. Example
squares :: [Int]squares = map square [1..]
Why CAFs are awkward
CAFs are awkward because:
A thunk must be updated so that, after its first use, all subsequent uses get the benefit.
The value to which the thunk is updated will be in the dynamic heap. For example, when map square [1..] is evaluated, it'll allocate cons cells in the dynamic heap.
So the CAF constitutes a "root", pointing into the dynamic heap, which the garbage collector must know about.
What we do about it
We could just say that all CAFs are roots; but then people complain about space leaks, when a big CAF (i.e. one pointing to a large data structure) is retained even when it can no longer be referred to. So GHC goes to strenuous efforts to track when a CAF "can no longer be referred to".
So here's what we do:
A static closure is CAFFY if a CAF can be reached from it
Every info-table points to a Static Reference Table (SRT) object, which is a static constructor that points to all the CAFFY closures that are directly mentioned by the code corresponding to this info table
When following the reachable pointers in a closure, the garbage collector also follows the pointer to the SRT
We say that a static closure (whether a thunk or not) is CAFFY if
It is a CAF, or
One or more of its free variables is CAFFY
foo = 1 : bar = 2 : squareswob = 3 : bar
Here foo is not CAFFY, but bar is CAFFY because it has squares (a CAF) as a free variable. And likewise wob is CAFFY because it has bar as a free variable.
Now, say that we have a nested let-binding
f x = let g = \y -> x + y + head squares in ...
The heap-allocated closure for g has a pointer to its free variable x. But its info table also has an SRT,
and that SRT points to squares_closure, becuase the latter is CAFFY. So if the g-closure is alive,
that keeps squares_closure alive, and hence keeps alive the list that squares has evaluated to.
Some implementation details
A CAFFY closure has a CafInfo of MayHaveCafRefs; a definitely non-CAFFY closure has a CafInfo of NoCafRefs.
While scavenging objects, we also process (aka "evacuate") any static objects that need to be kept alive. When a GC thread discovers a live static object, it places it on its static_objects
list. Later, this list is used to scavange the static objects, potentially finding more live objects.
Note that this process might find more static objects, and thus further extend the static_objects list.
When a static object is scavenged, it is removed from static_objects and placed on another list, called scavenged_static_objects. Later, we use this list to "clean up" the liveness markers from these static objects, so that we can repeat the process on the next garbage collection.
Note that we can't "clean up" the liveness markers as we go along because we use them to notice
cycles among the static objects.