I have always wondered why the garbage collector in Java activates whenever it feels like it rather than do:
if(obj.refCount == 0)
{
delete obj;
}
Are there any big advantages to how Java does it that I overlooked?
Thanks
I have always wondered why the garbage collector in Java activates whenever it feels like it rather than do:
if(obj.refCount == 0)
{
delete obj;
}
Are there any big advantages to how Java does it that I overlooked?
Thanks
because the garbage collector in java is based on
copying collector
for 'youg generation' objects, andmark and sweep
for `tenure generations' objects.Resources from: http://java.sun.com/docs/hotspot/gc1.4.2/faq.html
Reference counting has the following limitations:
Each JVM is different, but the HotSpot JVM does not primarily rely on reference counting as a means for garbage collection. Reference counting has the advantage of being simple to implement, but it is inherently error-prone. In particular, if you have a reference cycle (a set of objects that all refer to one another in a cycle), then reference counting will not correctly reclaim those objects because they all have nonzero reference count. This forces you to use an auxiliary garbage collector from time to time, which tends to be slower (Mozilla Firefox had this exact problem, and their solution was to add in a garbage collector at the cost of much code readability). This is why, for example, languages like C++ tend to have a combination of
shared_ptr
s that use reference counting andweak_ptr
s that don't use reference cycles.Additionally, associating a reference count with each object makes the cost of assigning a reference greater than normal, because of the extra bookkeeping involved of adjusting the reference count (which only gets worse in the presence of multithreading). Furthermore, using reference counting precludes the use of certain types fast of memory allocators, which can be a problem. It also tends to lead to heap fragmentation in its naive form, since objects are scattered through memory rather than tightly-packed, decreasing allocation times and causing poor locality.
The HotSpot JVM uses a variety of different techniques to do garbage collection, but its primary garbage collector is called a stop-and-copy collector. This collector works by allocating objects contiguously in memory next to one another, and allows for extremely fast (one or two assembly instructions) allocation of new objects. When space runs out, all of the new objects are GC'ed simultaneously, which usually kills off most of the new objects that were constructed. As a result, the GC is much faster than a typically reference-counting implementation, and ends up having better locality and better performance.
For a comparison of techniques in garbage collecting, along with a quick overview of how the GC in HotSpot works, you may want to check out these lecture slides from a compilers course that I taught last summer. You may also want to look at the HotSpot garbage collection white paper that goes into much more detail about how the garbage collector works, including ways of tuning the collector on an application-by-application basis.
Hope this helps!
Because it doesn't work strictly based on reference counting.
Consider circular references which are no longer reachable from the "root" of the application.
For example:
APP
has a reference toSOME_SCREEN
SOME_SCREEN
has a reference toSOME_CHILD
SOME_CHILD
has a reference toSOME_SCREEN
now,
APP
drops it's reference toSOME_SCREEN
.In this case,
SOME_SCREEN
still has a reference toSOME_CHILD
, andSOME_CHILD
still has a reference toSOME_SCREEN
- so, in this case, your example doesn't work.Now, others (Apple with ARC, Microsoft with COM, many others) have solutions for this and work more similarly to how you describe it.
With ARC you have to annotate your references with keywords like
strong
andweak
to let ARC know how to deal with these references (and avoid circular references)... (don't read too far into my specific example with ARC because ARC handles these things ahead-of-time during the compilation process and doesn't require a specific runtime per-se) so it can definitely be done similarly to how you describe it, but it's just not workable with some of the features of Java. I also believe COM works more similarly to how you describe... but again, that's not free of some amount of consideration on the developer's part.In fact, no "simple" reference counting scheme would ever be workable without some amount of thought by the application developer (to avoid circular references, etc)
Because the garbage collector in modern JVMs is no longer tracking references count. This algorithm is used to teach how GC works, but it was both resource-consuming and error-prone (e.g. cyclic dependencies).