Controlling garbage collection and heap growth to reduce the execution time of Java applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In systems that support garbage collection, a tension exists between collecting garbage too frequently and not collecting it frequently enough. Garbage collection that occurs too frequently may introduce unnecessary overheads at the risk of not collecting much garbage during each cycle. On the other hand, collecting garbage too infrequently can result in applications that execute with a large amount of virtual memory (i.e., with a large footprint) and suffer from increased execution times due to paging.In this article, we use a large set of Java applications and the highly tuned and widely used Boehm-Demers-Weiser (BDW) conservative mark-and-sweep garbage collector to experimentally examine the extent to which the frequency of garbage collection impacts an application's execution time, footprint, and pause times. We use these results to devise some guidelines for controlling garbage collection and heap growth in a conservative garbage collector in order to minimize application execution times. Then we describe new strategies for controlling garbage collection and heap growth that impact not only the frequency with which garbage collection occurs but also the points at which it occurs. Experimental results demonstrate that when compared with the existing approach used in the standard BDW collector, our new strategy can significantly reduce application execution times.Our goal is to obtain a better understanding of how to control garbage collection and heap growth for an individual application executing in isolation. These results can be applied in a number of high-performance computing and server environments, in addition to some single-user environments. This work should also provide insights into how to make better decisions that impact garbage collection in multiprogrammed environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".