问题
On collection, the garbage collector copies all live objects into another memory space, thus discarding all garbage objects in the process. A forward pointer to the copied object in new space is installed into the 'old' version of an object to ensure the collector updates all remaining references to the object correctly and doesn't erroneously copy the same object twice.
This obviously works quite well for stop-the-world-collectors. However, since pause times are long with stop-the-world, nowadays most garbage collectors allow the mutator threads to run concurrently with the collector, only stopping the mutators for a short time to do the initial stack scan.
So how can the collector ensure that the 'old' version of an object is not accessed by the mutator while/after copying it? I imagine the mutators could check for the forward pointer with some sort of read barrier, however this seems to costly to me since variables are read so often.
回答1:
You pretty much need to use a read barrier or a write barrier. You're apparently already aware of read barriers so I won't try to get into them.
Writer barriers work because as long as you prevent writes from happening, you simply don't care whether somebody accesses the old or the new copy of the data. You set the write barrier, copy the data, and then start adjusting pointers. After the copy is made, you don't really care whether somebody reads the old or the new copy of the data, because the write barrier ensures they're identical. Once you're done adjusting pointers, everything will be working with the new data, so you revoke the write barrier.
There has been some work done with using page protection bits to mark an area of memory as read-only to create a write-barrier on fairly standard hardware. At least the last time I looked into it, however, this was still pretty much at a proof of concept stage -- working, but too slow to be very practical.
回答2:
The Loaded Value Barrier implemented in Azul's Generational Pauseless Garbage Collector is an example of a solution to this problem. You can read about it in the article The Azul Garbage Collector posted on InfoQ in early 2011.
回答3:
Disclaimer: this is related to java's Shenandoah GC only.
Your reasons are absolutely spot on for Shenandoah! Some details here for example.
In the not so long ago days, Shenandoah had write and read barriers for all primitive and reference types. The read barrier was actually just a single indirection via the forwarding pointer as you assume. Since they are so much more compared to writes (which was a much more complicated barrier), these read barriers were more expensive (cumulative time-wise) vs the write ones. This had to do with the sole fact that these are so darn many.
But, things have changed in jdk-13, when a Load Reference barrier was implemented. Thus only loads have a barrier, write happen the usual way. If you think about it, this makes perfect sense, in order to write to an Object field, you need to read that object first, as such if your barrier preserves the "to-space invariant", you will always read from the most recent and correct copy of the object; without the need to use a read barrier with a forwarding pointer.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14435354/how-does-a-copying-garbage-collector-ensure-objects-are-not-accessed-while-copie