Why Does Go Offer Sub-Millisecond GC Pauses While JVMs Historically Struggle?

Delving into the Architectural Differences Affecting GC Pauses in JVM vs. Go

The persistent struggle with high GC pauses in JVM has prompted comparisons to Go's exceptional ability to reduce pauses to sub 1ms. To shed light on this disparity, let's delve into the architectural constraints that influence GC performance in each platform.

Go's Pause-Optimization Strategy

Go's garbage collector (GCGC) prioritizes minimizing GC pauses, leveraging a combination of techniques:

• Non-compacting, non-generational: This design simplifies the collection process, reducing the risk of fragmenting memory and compromising pause time.
• Concurrent mark and sweep: Marking and sweeping operations run concurrently with program execution, minimizing the duration of stop-the-world pauses.
• Write barriers: To maintain correctness during concurrent marking, write barriers are implemented, which can introduce some performance overhead.

JVM's Balancing Act

In contrast, JVM GCs traditionally focus on throughput and compaction to improve performance on large server-class machines. They employ generational collection and compaction mechanisms, which present the following tradeoffs:

• Compacting: Compaction prevents memory fragmentation, enabling more efficient memory allocation and cache locality.
• Generational collection: Separating objects into generations based on their lifetimes optimizes performance by promoting short-lived objects to faster-collected spaces.
• Stop-the-world pauses: These pauses occur whenever the old, tenured space requires collection.

Recent Innovations in JVM

Recognizing the need for improved pause times, the JVM ecosystem has developed new collectors:

• Oracle ZGC: Introduced in OpenJDK 16, ZGC achieves sub 1ms pauses while performing compaction, overcoming limitations of earlier JVM GCs.
• Shenandoah: Now available in OpenJDK 17, Shenandoah employs similar techniques to ZGC, achieving comparable performance with concurrent compaction.

Architectural Considerations

The architectural differences between Go and JVM GCs stem from their distinct design philosophies and performance priorities:

• GoGC: Prioritizes pause time by employing a non-compacting, non-generational approach.
• JVM GCs: Emphasize throughput and compaction, which historically came at the expense of pause time, but recent developments like ZGC and Shenandoah address this tradeoff.

In conclusion, the architectural differences in the design of Go's GCGC and JVM GCs have implications for their respective pause times. Go prioritizes pause reduction through simplicity and concurrency, while JVM GCs have traditionally sacrificed pause time for throughput and compaction. However, advancements in JVM technology, particularly ZGC and Shenandoah, are bridging the gap, offering pause times comparable to Go.

The above is the detailed content of Why Does Go Offer Sub-Millisecond GC Pauses While JVMs Historically Struggle?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!