On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 7:30 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> That rings a bell.  The hottest function on these profiles is
> sp--looking-back, which calls in a loop sp--looking-at, which does
> this:
>
>   (defun sp--looking-at (regexp)
>     "Like `looking-at', but always case sensitive."
>     (let ((case-fold-search nil))
>       (looking-at regexp)))
>
> As you will see from bug#18522, binding case-fold-search can be very
> expensive, especially if you have a lot of buffers.  See
> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=18522#201 for a summary
> of the findings there.  It clearly shows in your profile:
>
>                  sp--looking-at                171  12%
>                   let                           12   0%
>
> As to why you see a slowdown in Emacs 25, I don't know.  Maybe you
> have more buffers crop up there as the session goes on?
>

Interesting, yes this is possible. I switched to Emacs 25 before I started
emacs itself heavily and using window configurations heavily, so it is very
likely that I just end up with a large number of buffers and that’s when
the slowdown happens.

What is the alternative to binding case-fold-search? Could smartparens just
bind it once in a surrounding function? Or is there another way to ensure
that `looking-at` is case sensitive?


> > One curious thing is that the emacs 24 profile shows all of the builtins
> (let/if/save-excusion) and the emacs 25 profile does not. Is there
> something I’m doing wrong that is causing that?
>
> Could it be that in Emacs 24 you loaded the library as a .el file, and
> in Emacs 25 as a .elc file?
>

I suppose this is possible, I had just started emacs 24 and let it install
all from elpa/melpa (I’m using spacemacs, so it handled all this for me).
Typically it compiles everything, but maybe it hadn’t yet in the session I
was running. I have confirmed that if I eval-buffer smartparens.el, I get
the more detailed profile. That’s useful, thanks.


> > I’ll work on this. It seems possible that it will be very hard to track
> down given the nature—the performance isn’t *always* bad, it just becomes
> bad at some point in the session.
>
> When it becomes bad, count the number of buffers in each session.
> Bug#18522 provides some tools for that.
>

I couldn’t figure out how to count all_buffers, but I saw (length
(buffer-list)), is that sufficient?
-- 
Aaron