From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,ebcb336c62963fb4
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6e940fd5ba87c3ce
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-15 08:50:36 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!newsfeed!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: real-time Java
Date: 15 Apr 2003 11:50:29 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccllybiwu2.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <bebbba07.0304101816.3493f42a@posting.google.com>
 <a3eaa964.0304102210.3875f527@posting.google.com>
 <pan.2003.04.15.08.17.02.790560@cs.york.ac.uk.go.away>
 <b7gj3d$mtad$1@ID-139894.news.dfncis.de>
 <Jj6dnZQ3ZIVegAGjXTWcpg@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1050421836 701 199.172.62.241 (15 Apr 2003 15:50:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:50:36 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62144 comp.lang.ada:36164
Date: 2003-04-15T11:50:29-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> writes:

> Don't know much about it, but I read more than a year ago
> that some company had a JVM with "guaranteed deterministic"
> timing.

I wonder if the machine it runs on (I mean the real one, not the virtual
one) has a cache.

Also, I don't think "deterministic" is quite what you want.
You want some practical way of predicting a worst-case (bounded)
time during which GC locks out other tasks.

> How about a garbage collector in a lower priority
> task that runs continuosly for some percentage of
> CPU time instead of hogging the machine only when
> desperately needed?

That sort of thing can be done, but any GC is going to need *some*
amount of time to do stuff that can't be interrupted.  Designs that
reduce such times often increase the overall overhead, so there's
a tradeoff.

- Bob