From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:54:25 +0200 Message-ID: <87r23fiu66.fsf@gnus.org> References: <871rviobu2.fsf@gnus.org> <83imouo1jp.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2xplufp.fsf@gnus.org> <83r23hkqr3.fsf@gnu.org> <87k198bkrf.fsf@gnus.org> <834l0clbzt.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="217844"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: layer@franz.com, 32729@debbugs.gnu.org, benjamin.benninghofen@airbus.com, 32728@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 14 10:55:15 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJw8I-000uW1-23 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:55:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45862 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iJw8G-0000It-Oc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:55:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57010) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iJw88-0000HR-I7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:55:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iJw86-0007W9-Tz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:55:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:57531) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iJw86-0007W0-RX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:55:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJw86-0006xW-OH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:55:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:55:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 32729 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 32729-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B32729.157104327226705 (code B ref 32729); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:55:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 32729) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Oct 2019 08:54:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38118 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJw7b-0006wa-WA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:54:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.91.231.51] (port=54068 helo=quimby.gnus.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iJw7a-0006wM-H4; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:54:30 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJw7V-00043Q-JR; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:54:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: <834l0clbzt.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 13 Oct 2019 21:46:30 +0300") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:169246 Archived-At: Actually, my benchmarking is somewhat wrong. start-process with a filter, but discard output: (let ((coding-system-for-read 'binary)) (kill-buffer (get-buffer-create " *zeroes*")) (benchmark-run 1 (let ((proc (start-process "dd" (get-buffer-create " *zeroes*") "dd" "if=/dev/zero" "bs=4096" "count=250000"))) (set-process-filter proc (lambda (proc string))) (while (and (process-live-p proc) (accept-process-output proc 1)))))) => (18.828236636 59 13.315468088000017) filter, but insert the output: (let ((coding-system-for-read 'binary)) (kill-buffer (get-buffer-create " *zeroes*")) (benchmark-run 1 (let ((proc (start-process "dd" (get-buffer-create " *zeroes*") "dd" "if=/dev/zero" "bs=4096" "count=250000"))) (set-process-filter proc (lambda (proc string) (with-current-buffer (get-buffer " *zeroes*") (goto-char (point-max)) (insert string)))) (while (and (process-live-p proc) (accept-process-output proc 1)))))) => (21.120281346 59 13.250166416000013) With the default filter: (let ((coding-system-for-read 'binary)) (kill-buffer (get-buffer-create " *zeroes*")) (benchmark-run 1 (let ((proc (start-process "dd" (get-buffer-create " *zeroes*") "dd" "if=/dev/zero" "bs=4096" "count=250000"))) (while (and (process-live-p proc) (accept-process-output proc 1)))))) => (34.046986424 116 26.025843717999976) (!) So the default filter is really slow? Anyway, compare with call-process: (let ((coding-system-for-read 'binary)) (kill-buffer (get-buffer-create " *zeroes*")) (benchmark-run 1 (call-process "dd" nil (get-buffer-create " *zeroes*") nil "if=/dev/zero" "bs=4096" "count=250000"))) => (1.694743653 0 0.0) So what makes start-process 10x slower than call-process? If it is all the string creation before calling the filters, default or not, then my point stands, but this obviously requires a more in-depth dive into process.c. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no