I think this is a misunderstanding. If the program out-paces the GC because the GC guessed the trigger point wrong, something has to give.
In Go, what gives is goroutines have to use some of their time slice to assist the GC and pay down their allocations.
In Java, I believe what you used to get was called "concurrent mode failure" which was somewhat notorious, since it would just stop the world to complete the mark phase. I don't know how this has changed. Poking around a little bit it seems like something similar in ZGC is called "allocation failure"?
The GC assist approach adopted by Go was inspired by real-time GC techniques from the literature and in practice it works nicely. It's not perfect of course, but it's worked just fine for lots of programs. From a purely philosophical point of view, I think it results in a more graceful degradation under unexpectedly high allocation pressure than stopping the world, but what happens in practice is much more situational and relies on good heuristics in the implementation.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with Go. What makes you say this? Have you filed an issue upstream yet? If not, I encourage you to do so. I can't promise it'll be fixed or delved into immediately, but filing detailed feedback like this is really helpful for prioritizing work.
The compiler generates code to spill arguments to the stack at synchronous preemption points (function entry). Signal-based preemption has a spill path that saves the full ABI register set.
In Go, what gives is goroutines have to use some of their time slice to assist the GC and pay down their allocations.
In Java, I believe what you used to get was called "concurrent mode failure" which was somewhat notorious, since it would just stop the world to complete the mark phase. I don't know how this has changed. Poking around a little bit it seems like something similar in ZGC is called "allocation failure"?
The GC assist approach adopted by Go was inspired by real-time GC techniques from the literature and in practice it works nicely. It's not perfect of course, but it's worked just fine for lots of programs. From a purely philosophical point of view, I think it results in a more graceful degradation under unexpectedly high allocation pressure than stopping the world, but what happens in practice is much more situational and relies on good heuristics in the implementation.