From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#61667: 29.0.60; Failure to redisplay Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:48:16 +0200 Message-ID: <834jrbpnin.fsf@gnu.org> References: <04d7cb31-684c-07c0-ee7b-503514fc1a85@yandex.ru> <87a617eanz.fsf@yahoo.com> <4306cb76-a44c-3101-e43c-fd64afae4a51@yandex.ru> <871qmje2ws.fsf@yahoo.com> <83edqjtbss.fsf@gnu.org> <4e5e2a46-9b07-206a-6774-9f98f34cbd14@yandex.ru> <83y1orrolh.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfeyswdw.fsf@gnu.org> <877cwactgv.fsf@yahoo.com> <83mt55sxli.fsf@gnu.org> <8afe34f2-eeea-3be8-82ef-576a115beb6d@yandex.ru> <96b742a05da174ece02e@heytings.org> <25c48260-2edc-f062-8fef-52ff2fdd22e3@yandex.ru> <96b742a05dea855f9636@heytings.org> <853eca8f-5850-dd73-7601-4fad92613ab9@yandex.ru> <83lekopask.fsf@gnu.org> <3d652eb5-339d-7185-b89f-fba49909aab4@yandex.ru> <838rgop4lt.fsf@gnu.org> <80014eb5-fee3-00ff-2987-5afa26002182@yandex.ru> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11867"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, 61667@debbugs.gnu.org, gregory@heytings.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 24 07:49:27 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pVRtV-0002nb-HZ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 07:49:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVRtJ-00016o-DM; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:49:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVRt9-00015N-Jd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:49:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVRt8-0006G7-Ti for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:49:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVRt8-0002Nv-Gq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:49:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 06:49:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 61667 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 61667-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B61667.16772213059073 (code B ref 61667); Fri, 24 Feb 2023 06:49:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 61667) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Feb 2023 06:48:25 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35857 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVRsW-0002MF-Oq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:48:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47286) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pVRsV-0002La-4b for 61667@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:48:23 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVRsP-0006BO-P0; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:48:17 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=EK3tyxPUh50GYNt8sib1aC140V59wOR3SGApvFCh6SE=; b=YMhiyu/nhnek sF1MmtV5qbiEMe3kWsRZbwmhbUlMyFSA6qdY19vWXZ75Jiaw+ejnIC9FNg4NUe1CWFesWAAnAFkt8 JlPjoGlG12CNmtEhoN+ASSGWJskzHw1bj05Vo78pqP9FEYpytoKrwXFsGAnZv9crtCsnWocBnYoEb AjOdUurhsULzjMhPF8ijD0I2PsU6TsuE6GM9E4om8kKoidlPnrZZlzGm1rrl8OpcSxl6VAdAgQ7a8 i+gzmTANfJOO2ZS5bSP5yDcyZtuluBWmAfJ7Kkj32yc5s6Pr9BatrDp0nUXluWQ43X0rjjLTrYIf6 Y6vaPbDyX5aYHVogeCAMwg==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pVRsO-0000tz-Ge; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 01:48:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <80014eb5-fee3-00ff-2987-5afa26002182@yandex.ru> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 23 Feb 2023 22:05:52 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:256546 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 22:05:52 +0200 > Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, 61667@debbugs.gnu.org, gregory@heytings.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 23/02/2023 21:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:12:42 +0200 > >> Cc:luangruo@yahoo.com,61667@debbugs.gnu.org,gregory@heytings.org > >> From: Dmitry Gutov > >> > >>>> - Run the command above > >>>> - Press "a" > >>>> - Look for the delay between the title bar and the window updates > >>>> > >>>> With the above 'emacs -Q' it's not as prominent as with my config, but > >>>> it can reach what looks like 100-200ms. Once every 10 tries or so. > >>> Isn't that the 100-ms delay we wait for the initial frame to finish > >>> displaying, since that requires that we receive some messages from X? > >> Probably not: in this scenario I usually wait for the frame to finish > >> resizing, rendering, etc, and for*scratch* to be displayed properly, > >> and then I press 'a'. > > And without double-buffering you see no such delays? > > Yep: as soon as I add > > --eval "(modify-frame-parameters nil '((inhibit-double-buffering . t)))" > > to the command line invocation, the effect disappears. > > > not even the > > short ones of 100ms? > > It might be more like 200-300ms, by the way. Sounds like for some reason we don't swap the back buffer to the screen? Po Lu, is there any reason which could delay or prevent that? Like perhaps we decide that the updated frame is not up-to-date or something?