Jan. 24, 2017
6:51 p.m.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:21:45 -0800 Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
The thing I found most surprising about that blog post was that contrary to common wisdom, refcnt updates per se had essentially no effect on the amount of memory shared between CoW processes, and the problems were all due to the cycle collector.
Indeed, it was unexpected, though it can be explained easily: refcount updates touch only the live working set, while GC passes scan through all existing objects, even those that are never actually used. Regards Antoine.