From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: How to measure frame rate in fps? Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 15:33:25 +0300 Message-ID: <837dj5hn1m.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83h7ih24kc.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2btzlui.fsf@gnu.org> <4fe7f7a7-7c23-25fc-2d59-f1290436f487@yandex.ru> <83sg21zjg0.fsf@gnu.org> <472fab69-c072-74d4-e8d2-0dcefab7f726@yandex.ru> <834kehyp6s.fsf@gnu.org> <83o8cjikuj.fsf@gnu.org> <838s3ni2z9.fsf@gnu.org> <1fe36d16-202a-9c00-7a17-946226ad8e0f@yandex.ru> <83sg1uhpw2.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3795"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: wyuenho@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 08 02:10:13 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1lqPJs-0000hz-PH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 02:10:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47538 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqPJr-000665-Q0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 20:10:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55692) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqPFE-00081Z-0k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 20:05:24 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39458) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqPF9-0001BX-JD; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 20:05:23 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1773 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqERd-0003gC-0O; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 08:33:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:31:50 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:270543 Archived-At: > Cc: wyuenho@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 02:31:50 +0300 > > I have one scenario, which I run with toolbar disabled, then enabled, > then disabled, then enabled again. With a (benchmark-progn ...) wrapped > around a (redisplay) call, to note how long it really takes in practice. > > I'm saying that the buffer, or other window configuration, don't change > at those points, so the toolbar likely doesn't need to be re-rendered, > and so the extra overhead is surprising. And that the toolbar taking > 10-15ms to re-render isn't great either in any case. But in the profile you showed we didn't see any evidence of significant CPU usage by functions that redraw the GTK toolbar. So I'm not sure the overhead is due to redrawing the toolbar, although it might be _triggered_ by the presence of the toolbar. > It's the difference, computed very roughly. Let me show you the contents > of the Messages buffer. The times printed are reported by the > (benchmark-progn (redisplay)) form: How do you reconcile this with the 00.00% that GTK functions took? Can you see what does 'perf' say about functions from gtkutil.c that are related to toolbar redisplay?