From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#66117: 30.0.50; `find-buffer-visiting' is slow when opening large number of buffers Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2023 09:29:15 +0000 Message-ID: <87y1gezspg.fsf@localhost> References: <878r919qfh.fsf@localhost> <72c93fb0-bf3e-3dad-69c0-2147cfa40f57@gutov.dev> <875y42xyex.fsf@localhost> <87zg1ewfc2.fsf@localhost> <834jjm749q.fsf@gnu.org> <87cyyawd1a.fsf@localhost> <83pm2a5k85.fsf@gnu.org> <87wmwh2tae.fsf@localhost> <83zg1d468w.fsf@gnu.org> <87bkdr2651.fsf@localhost> <87pm2584oz.fsf@localhost> <83cyy11ln1.fsf@gnu.org> <87lecp84mf.fsf@localhost> <83ttrdx8j9.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5su261p.fsf@localhost> <838r8e24yy.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6798"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, 66117@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 07 11:29:30 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 1qp3cn-0001Ug-3h for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 07 Oct 2023 11:29:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qp3c9-00076g-CO; Sat, 07 Oct 2023 05:28:49 -0400 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 1qp3c2-00076H-VU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Oct 2023 05:28:43 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qp3c2-0007Wa-Im for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Oct 2023 05:28:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qp3cL-0007NC-Kp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Oct 2023 05:29:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Ihor Radchenko Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2023 09:29:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 66117 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 66117-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B66117.169667088728275 (code B ref 66117); Sat, 07 Oct 2023 09:29:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 66117) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Oct 2023 09:28:07 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53328 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qp3bS-0007Ly-Bf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 07 Oct 2023 05:28:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:49819) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qp3bP-0007LT-Rc for 66117@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 07 Oct 2023 05:28:04 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DC7D240029 for <66117@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 7 Oct 2023 11:27:38 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1696670858; bh=vOdI9EPTwPW5eFj2aPEEvMRVmsof96pZl9VMOF4wgjE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=gdSNpDcse42ktkJ4mBHJq8D/kAZBc/K6kUaKN8rak2QIOUoYLrsK+3dqrz5DZwZ2w ZZaaOYeNZvfVNw096bJ1S2v4nkq3638d3XTkNSl+ejIi+bOxkTac/f7MjWLIUXt7Yq +/ASte10eJkWwyqS5meKJP2kL9x2X1FdapP09+d2Ut12nS9KTpWeATtlVLS6LHmr4p e+jpt0vPfWXuZlZRBxPG2+ywKVoce8xx+GFBZREAomOd+W5bWiE/UMvuTlsVAnDnjD 7XKP/KU53ka1A07fszDwAnF7lWBcptc8c08WOtP0Wbke8If6nE9oiXRlMS9PRLbnro G9VULXvtW9M5w== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4S2g1j5Hhrz6tyT; Sat, 7 Oct 2023 11:27:37 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <838r8e24yy.fsf@gnu.org> 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:271986 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> We are probably mis-communicating. My point is that `get-file-buffer' is >> very fast (for my purposes). So, it does not matter as much if it is >> called somewhere else and how many times. > > It matters to me. Timing code must be very accurate and must not > modify the code in question, certainly not by invoking the same > primitives that are already called by the code being times. My point is that an extra call to `get-file-buffer' in (unless (get-file-buffer ...) ...) does not change the profiling results - `get-file-buffer' only takes 49 samples out of 5157 (<1%). Calling `get-file-buffer' multiple times literally make no difference in my benchmark. > I must say that this discussion is very frustrating from my POV. Lots > of information, a large portion of it irrelevant, and very little > systematical analysis of the involved code, its actual performance, > and the conclusions with numbers to back them up. Sorry, but I do not fully understand what you expected. I tried my best to provide all the details of my testing during the course of this branch of the discussion. In particular, see https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=66117#59 and later https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=66117#71 where I addressed your concern about calling `find-buffer-visiting'/`get-file-buffer' unnecessarily in the testing code. I provided the code, the timing, and the raw data from the profiler report. Please, let me know if you need more. > ... On top of that, > gaps for a week or more between a message and a response, something > that makes it hard to follows the discussion. We should be able to do > better. I can understand the frustration, but I just have as much time as I can allocate. I was mostly AFC for about a week and was not able to reply to many of the Emacs-related discussions. Also, I am used to mailing list rule that one month is allowed for a reply (https://orgmode.org/worg/org-mailing-list.html#i-didnt-receive-an-answer). I thought that emacs-devel is not different. >> I looked closer, and there is already `get_truename_buffer', which can >> simply be exposed to Lisp. >> >> `buffer-file-number' is a bit more tricky - it is not defined in C, but >> in files.el. However, I am wondering if this variable should be moved to >> C or maybe into the buffer object. `make-indirect-buffer' (defined in C) >> has >> >> Fset (intern ("buffer-save-without-query"), Qnil); >> Fset (intern ("buffer-file-number"), Qnil); >> >> WDYT? > > TTTT, I don't know what to think. > > From my POV, there are two alternatives here: > > . expose several new primitives to Lisp to make find-buffer-visiting > faster without changing the way we store the file-to-buffer > association information > . introduce caches or change the way file-to-buffer associations are > stored to speed up find-buffer-visiting > > What I'd like to see is that someone implements the first idea, and > times find-buffer-visiting after that to see if it becomes fast > enough. Then we can discuss whether anything else is needed. Agree. That's what I was trying to do. However, one of the new primitives will require searching a buffer with given value of `buffer-file-number' - the variable not defined in C. That's why my question - I can either query buffer-local variable in generic way via `Fbuffer_local_value' or faster, by adding `buffer-file-number' to buffer object. The latter also makes sense in the context of `make-indirect-buffer' implementation. >> >> Aside: this reminds me about obsoletion of generalized buffer-local >> >> variable. AFAIU, there is currently no way to set buffer-local value in >> >> buffer without setting that buffer to current. It would be nice if such >> >> setting were possible, especially in performance-critical code. >> > >> > Maybe, but is there any performance-critical code which needs that? >> >> For example, org-element.el needs to set buffer-local values in base >> buffer of an indirect buffer every time buffer text is being edited. > > And that is performance-critical? in what way and in which situations? When making a large number of edits in Org buffer. The code I am referring to runs in `after-change-functions' and therefore should be as fast as possible. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at