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 garbage frequently enough. Garbage collection that occurs too frequently may introduce unnecessary overheads at the rist 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 die to paging. In this paper, we use a large colleciton 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 collectio impacts an application's execution time, footprint, and pause times. We use these results to devise some guidelines for controlling garbage and heap growth in a conservative garbage collection in order to minimize application execution times. Then we describe new strategies for controlling in order to minimize application execution times.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".