From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#40704: 28.0.50; Improve and speed up (Gnus) registry saving Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 20:42:21 -0700 Message-ID: <87o8rl33oi.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87a738ql1z.fsf@web.de> <87pnc2lrpi.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87lfmpkac0.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="129742"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 40704@debbugs.gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 21 05:43:11 2020 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 1jQjoU-000Xcz-5r for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 05:43:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49284 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jQjoT-0003Ep-7c for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 23:43:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57964) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jQjoN-0003EP-4h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 23:43:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jQjoM-0004Qo-Jz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 23:43:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:37268) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jQjoM-0004QZ-8M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 23:43:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jQjoM-0007s8-01 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 23:43:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eric Abrahamsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 03:43:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 40704 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 40704-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B40704.158744055230221 (code B ref 40704); Tue, 21 Apr 2020 03:43:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 40704) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Apr 2020 03:42:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48814 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jQjns-0007rN-JN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 23:42:32 -0400 Original-Received: from ericabrahamsen.net ([52.70.2.18]:48696 helo=mail.ericabrahamsen.net) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jQjnq-0007r9-K8 for 40704@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 23:42:30 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (c-73-254-86-141.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [73.254.86.141]) (Authenticated sender: eric@ericabrahamsen.net) by mail.ericabrahamsen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E72EFA02A; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 03:42:23 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <87lfmpkac0.fsf@web.de> (Michael Heerdegen's message of "Tue, 21 Apr 2020 01:26:39 +0200") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:178741 Archived-At: Michael Heerdegen writes: > Eric Abrahamsen writes: > >> > Any comments on the suggested changes? >> >> Not that it's up to me, > > I wonder who it's up to... There's sort of a `with-gnus-bug-report' macro that we're working with here, where if Lars (or in this case, Ted Zlatanov) doesn't respond within a certain period of time, the commit automatically goes in. >> but I'm all for putting in #1 and #3 as-is, and adjusting #2 to scale >> with the number of `gnus-registry-max-entries', with the addition of a >> hard ceiling. > > Too large values of `gnus-registry-max-entries' can be harmful > (fragmentation of memory?), I wonder if this can potentially be the case > here. Well that's where the hard ceiling comes in, right? > I'm also not sure if scaling is a good idea at all. The value I chose > will still make gc happen much less frequently even if your registry is > huge. So it's still a win. If your value is too large, the final > cleanup may take longer as necessary -- who has experience with this > problem -- anybody? Not me, let's hope for more respondents...