From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What makes set-window-buffer slow? Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:54:53 +0300 Message-ID: <83bn2r2i0y.fsf@gnu.org> References: <576C04E4.9040000@gmail.com> <576C2054.3020705@gmail.com> <20160623181242.GB4946@acm.fritz.box> <576C2AAA.1090707@gmail.com> <83fus33ekr.fsf@gnu.org> <576C536A.6060503@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1466751357 18353 80.91.229.3 (24 Jun 2016 06:55:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 06:55:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, schwab@suse.de To: =?windows-1252?Q?Cl=E9ment?= Pit--Claudel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 24 08:55:56 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bGL1w-0003Dq-EQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 08:55:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41390 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGL1v-00033K-ES for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 02:55:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37257) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGL1j-00030V-7f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 02:55:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGL1e-0004FW-VD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 02:55:42 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52953) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGL1e-0004FS-NJ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 02:55:38 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3720 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bGL1d-00042k-O3; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 02:55:38 -0400 In-reply-to: <576C536A.6060503@gmail.com> (message from =?windows-1252?Q?C?= =?windows-1252?Q?l=E9ment?= Pit--Claudel on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:23:54 -0400) 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:204718 Archived-At: > From: Clément Pit--Claudel > Cc: acm@muc.de, schwab@suse.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:23:54 -0400 > > On 2016-06-23 15:11, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Instead of hypothesizing, I suggest to profile your code with > > profiler.el. If indeed redisplay is taking the time, you should see > > that in the profile. > > The profile doesn't show that, unfortunately; in fact, we spent a significant amount of time trying to understand what was taking all that time by looking at the profile, but nothing in there was taking more than 30% of the time, and even optimizing away a function that according to the profile took 28% of the time didn't yield a measurable runtime difference. > > Commenting out the call to set-window-buffer (or predicating it on the window not already displaying the buffer), on the other hand, does yield a 95% performance gain. set-window-buffer does not appear in the profile; redisplay_internal does appear, but it only is credited with 30% of the execution time. > > I wonder what might explain these results... Any hope of seeing the profile, fully expanded?