From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs-26.0.91: switch-to-buffer-other-window runs too slowly (about 0.1s) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:28:15 +0300 Message-ID: <837epyg30w.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83efk6g93z.fsf@gnu.org> <544b8346-bda9-45eb-9573-1d51d9f768b2@Spark> <83bmfag8gu.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ie24z1.fsf@gmail.com> <87sh8m23tc.fsf@gmail.com> <87k1ty22p1.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522085173 22631 195.159.176.226 (26 Mar 2018 17:26:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:26:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Robert Pluim Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 26 19:26:08 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 1f0Vsm-0005oQ-JY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:26:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58215 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0Vuq-0000uf-1K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:28:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49683) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0Vuk-0000uT-Cu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:28:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0Vuf-0004Ek-VF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:28:10 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49477) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0Vuf-0004EQ-SF; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:28:05 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3217 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1f0Vuf-0003tY-9k; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:28:05 -0400 In-reply-to: <87k1ty22p1.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Robert Pluim on Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:59:06 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:224052 Archived-At: > From: Robert Pluim > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:59:06 +0200 > Cc: zhang cc , Emacs developers > > Noam Postavsky writes: > > > On 26 March 2018 at 12:34, Robert Pluim wrote: > >> Robert Pluim writes: > >> > >>> I get the same: 0.1 seconds under GTK, 0.000446348s under -nw > >> > >> And profiling pointed at window--maybe-raise-frame. Testing then > >> pointed at make-frame-visible. Disabling the call to that in > >> window--maybe-raise-frame makes the test virtually instantaneous for > >> me. Looks like x_make_frame_visible is the culprit. > > > > Does changing x-wait-for-event-timeout affect this? > > Yes. 0.001990967s with that let-bound to nil. The time increases as I increase > x-wait-for-event-timeout. Right. Then I guess this is expected, and users who are annoyed by the additional 100 msec on the one hand, and see no adverse effects when it is nil OTOH, should do that, and be done. IOW, the default is sub-optimal, but safe, and we couldn't find a better solution at the time.