I'm looking over the outcome of some simple C# code that just adds 10 mil elements to an ArrayList (efficiency is not the point, I just needed something that triggers GCs).
(我正在查看一些简单的C＃代码的结果，这些代码仅向ArrayList中添加了1000万个元素（效率不是重点，我只需要触发GC的内容）。)
.NET Framework 4.7.2 is used.
(使用.NET Framework 4.7.2。)
GC is running in the default Concurrent Workstation mode, on a Windows 10 x64 OS. (GC在Windows 10 x64 OS上以默认的并发工作站模式运行。)
BenchmarkDotNet (BDN) is used to profile the code and PerfView runs at the same time to collect GC info.
(BenchmarkDotNet（BDN）用于分析代码，PerfView同时运行以收集GC信息。)
I simply mention BDN since the induced GCs seen before and after the code runs are actually coming from it; (我之所以仅提及BDN，是因为在代码运行之前和之后看到的诱导式GC实际上是来自于它。)
it plays no other role in the problem at hand. (它在眼前的问题中没有其他作用。)
Looking over PerfView's GCStats data, and focusing only on one single run of the code, we get this output:
(查看PerfView的GCStats数据，仅关注一次代码运行，我们得到以下输出：)
Let's take a closer look for what happens during the last background GC ( 2B ), from within PerfView, by looking at the ETW events themselves:
(让我们通过查看ETW事件本身来仔细查看PerfView中最后一个后台GC（ 2B ）期间发生的情况：)
As expected, the gen2 GC triggers both a gen0 (red highlight) and a gen1 GC (green highlight).
(正如预期的那样，gen2 GC触发了gen0（红色突出显示）和gen1 GC（绿色突出显示）。)
Also, from Konrad Kokosa's book, "Pro .NET Memory Management": " Foreground GCs are regular Non-Concurrent GCs, during which Background GC is temporarily suspended " (另外，在Konrad Kokosa的书“ Pro .NET内存管理”中：“ 前台GC是常规的非并行GC，在此期间临时暂停了后台GC ”)
In this context, why isn't the gen0 GC - reported as NonConcurrentGC - actually marked as ForegroundGC, just as the gen1 GC is ?
(在这种情况下， 为什么不像Gen1 GC一样将gen0 GC（报告为NonConcurrentGC）实际标记为ForegroundGC ？)
It's not a one-off thing either: the pattern of the BGC gen2 triggering one non-concurrent gen0 and a foreground gen1 GC is repeated.
(这也不是一次性的事情：重复触发非并发gen0和前台gen1 GC的BGC gen2模式。)
ask by Mihai Albert translate from so 
