Paper detail

Distilling the Real Cost of Production Garbage Collectors

Abridged abstract: despite the long history of garbage collection (GC) and its prevalence in modern programming languages, there is surprisingly little clarity about its true cost. Without understanding their cost, crucial tradeoffs made by garbage collectors (GCs) go unnoticed. This can lead to misguided design constraints and evaluation criteria used by GC researchers and users, hindering the development of high-performance, low-cost GCs. In this paper, we develop a methodology that allows us to empirically estimate the cost of GC for any given set of metrics. By distilling out the explicitly identifiable GC cost, we estimate the intrinsic application execution cost using different GCs. The minimum distilled cost forms a baseline. Subtracting this baseline from the total execution costs, we can then place an empirical lower bound on the absolute costs of different GCs. Using this methodology, we study five production GCs in OpenJDK 17, a high-performance Java runtime. We measure the cost of these collectors, and expose their respective key performance tradeoffs. We find that with a modestly sized heap, production GCs incur substantial overheads across a diverse suite of modern benchmarks, spending at least 7-82% more wall-clock time and 6-92% more CPU cycles relative to the baseline cost. We show that these costs can be masked by concurrency and generous provisioning of memory/compute. In addition, we find that newer low-pause GCs are significantly more expensive than older GCs, and, surprisingly, sometimes deliver worse application latency than stop-the-world GCs. Our findings reaffirm that GC is by no means a solved problem and that a low-cost, low-latency GC remains elusive. We recommend adopting the distillation methodology together with a wider range of cost metrics for future GC evaluations.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.