Exploration of Dynamic Memory

Since the advent of the Java programming language and the development of real-time garbage collection, Java has become an option for implementing real-time applications. The memory management choices provided by real-time garbage collection allow for real-time eJava developers to spend more of their time implementing real-time solutions. Unfortunately, the real-time community is not convinced that real-time garbage collection works in managing memory for Java applications deployed in a real-time context. Consequently, the Real-Time for Java Expert Group formulated the Real-Time Specification for Java (RTSJ) standards to make Java a real-time programming language. In lieu of garbage collection, the RTSJ proposed a new memory model called scopes, and a new type of thread called NoHeapRealTimeThread (NHRT), which takes advantage of scopes. While scopes and NHRTs promise predictable allocation and deallocation behaviors, no asymptotic studies have been conducted to investigate the costs associated with these technologies. To understand the costs associated with using these technologies to manage memory, computations and analyses of time and space overheads associated with scopes and NHRTs are presented. These results provide a framework for comparing the RTSJ’s memory management model with real-time garbage collection. Another facet of this research concerns the optimization of novel approaches to garbage collection on multiprocessor systems. Such approaches yield features that are suitable for real-time systems. Although multiprocessor, concurrent garbage collection is not the same as real-time garbage collection, advancements in multiprocessor concurrent garbage collection have demonstrated the feasibility of building low latency multiprocessor real-time garbage collectors. In the nineteen-sixties, only three garbage collection schemes were available, namely reference counting garbage collection, mark-sweep garbage collection, and copying garbage collection. These classical approaches gave new insight into the discipline of memory management and inspired researchers to develop new, more elaborate memory-management techniques. Those insights resulted in a plethora of automatic memory management algorithms and techniques, and a lack of uniformity in the language used to reason about garbage collection. To bring a sense of uniformity to the language used to reason about garbage collection technologies, a taxonomy for comparing garbage collection technologies is presented