From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alex Harsanyi Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: w32-pipe-read-delay (was: vc-dir operation is very slow on large git repositories in Emacs 26.1) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 22:00:39 +0800 Message-ID: <4EAA4A00-0986-4783-8256-801AB9E0D1B5@gmail.com> References: <83k1qtsbgi.fsf@gnu.org> <83zhzoqkgv.fsf@gnu.org> <83efgzqjv5.fsf@gnu.org> <83wouqptm6.fsf@gnu.org> <83k1qqufwq.fsf@gnu.org> <83y3f5tycz.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1529762361 3735 195.159.176.226 (23 Jun 2018 13:59:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 13:59:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 23 15:59:17 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fWj4O-0000q9-Dm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:59:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38678 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fWj6U-0004CJ-2D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:01:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43810) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fWj5s-0004AD-L0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:00:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fWj5r-0008FV-QY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:00:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pg0-x22b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b]:35690) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fWj5o-0008DK-1o; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:00:44 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id i7-v6so4174318pgp.2; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 07:00:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=r9UzCfzpp3wl1PeymOXF/qiYq7c7lPtXxs8y7BeMGcA=; b=j9p4mjbg5qXxcoWu7wtXlrJUwXG//uD+nNpcXW3TFXTG0Yy7Us/qQP98yzRkfJzQNr xCtxoNK/jKrzcpkgKcxqEZnBWF8p/C8s89qVoeI4BRns+Dg6nGPoxDHQWBgqKDlMpQYP yP7eFKrhBuV3778H08Eu0VDbFn0rdqWUtVwL+UL01OUd6QMbASh3v4eNNeNflxMXx/dw ELnA6MYvpgrPSjjAPAIIFQrYwM83piCXst5611bWaapBAix1Y99y0hUMXnlL1KhfcUvH Ji4ZNDjUKWuiRbVSaz5hgDE1NjIiK2XaGYcubrJxFbCmPOHmkL7EioS/J4cqo+Sfxec1 UUOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=r9UzCfzpp3wl1PeymOXF/qiYq7c7lPtXxs8y7BeMGcA=; b=j7iRkx88s2az4bAAdZlo3ekAs7MGwR6clNUnILsI64TIN6ZVW9da7pKgXPejOu0BYg f09FTKc4+o7c4mjm733u9v7pg6shZ1Dm3xmtbSVcOcoXOkq+blUxPlm2WSatixQ7JA7C O/nEHqkGJUn3oOSE1WPRwttF0D+q8o5g0t+dNRCnOsD0o/lRkwwCOc+k6RsP2D3yiIDl XessA5PEyy0IYF+zQUiIOhQK1dn47hVWszwxzp66pPBoaKofew+YjYzuUxjsF5BNSioP tRGqAzeSqbJIwrt+J03IoHGszUCDoYTRU2BdSK/dBEfBBJYMmGvtOzzVGpWytbhhvccP 06zQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E31yCoscu0cYSAf3QyKxMsCTdAvvSaHSagplUz4AIxN+HGsltNq qSdCNqapPCQ4X9UCjcW/hEi1vidU X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKItPQ6ocAz13HpvLNK1RtEKsNxDJFwU29FQBUzg39ptjBWoKKp5tB2lQtdlL1R9hlEgb3YH/w== X-Received: by 2002:a65:4aca:: with SMTP id c10-v6mr4895310pgu.327.1529762442694; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 07:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [10.1.1.244] (220-235-66-232.dyn.iinet.net.au. [220.235.66.232]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o12-v6sm3800902pgs.52.2018.06.23.07.00.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Jun 2018 07:00:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15F79) In-Reply-To: <83y3f5tycz.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:226628 Archived-At: On 23 Jun 2018, at 9:40 pm, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Alex Harsanyi >> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 21:32:24 +0800 >>=20 >> Oops, above I meant to say 0.08, not 0.8, here some sequential runs with >> `w32-pipe-read-delay` set to 0 and `w32-pipe-buffer-size` set to 0: >>=20 >> time-process: it took 0.08 seconds >> time-process: it took 0.14 seconds >> time-process: it took 0.09 seconds >> time-process: it took 0.14 seconds [2 times] >> time-process: it took 0.14 seconds >> time-process: it took 0.09 seconds >> time-process: it took 0.14 seconds >> time-process: it took 0.11 seconds >> time-process: it took 0.13 seconds >> time-process: it took 0.09 seconds >> time-process: it took 0.14 seconds >> time-process: it took 0.09 seconds >=20 > I'm confused: w32-pipe-buffer-size is zero by default, so what can we > learn about it from the above experiment? Increasing w32-pipe-buffer-size has no effect on the speed of reading from t= he pipe. I tried several buffer size values, in combination with several rea= d delay values, but only the read delay has an effect. For example, at 50 mi= lliseconds read delay, it takes ~13 seconds to read 1 Mb of data, regardless= if the buffer size is set to 0, 4096, 8192 or 16384.=20 In one of my previous emails I indicated that increasing the buffer size mad= e things faster, but that was an incorrect test, since I only run the test o= nce, and there is some variation in the timings =E2=80=94 this is what I tri= ed to explain in the last email.=20 Apologies for the confusion.=20 Alex.=20=