Benchmarking and learning garbage collection delays for resource‐restricted graphical user interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tablets, smartphones, and wearables have limited resources. Applications on these devices employ a graphical user interface (GUI) for interaction with users. Language runtimes for GUIs employ dynamic memory management using garbage collection (GC). However, GC policies and algorithms are designed for data centers and cloud computing, but they are not necessarily ideal for resource‐constrained embedded devices. In this article, we present GUI GC, a JavaFX GUI benchmark, which we use to compare the performance of the four GC policies of the Eclipse OpenJ9 Java runtime on a resource‐constrained environment. Overall, our experiments suggest that the default policy Gencon registered significantly lower execution times than its counterparts. The region‐based policy, Balanced, did not fully utilize blocking times; thus, using GUI GC, we conducted experiments with explicit GC invocations that measured significant improvements of up to 13.22% when multiple CPUs were available. Furthermore, we created a second version of GUI GC that expands on the number of controllable load‐stressing dimensions; we conducted a large number of randomly configured experiments to quantify the performance effect that each knob has. Finally, we analyzed our dataset to derive suitable knob configurations for desired runtime, GC, and hardware stress levels.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".