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: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 20:30:06 +0300 Message-ID: <83mtacyfvl.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87bkqxf1ij.fsf@tethera.net> <8335c9dkyf.fsf@gnu.org> <83edvqafr7.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsg6m5zx.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <83mtaeys7k.fsf@gnu.org> <87o7uukngi.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <83a66czz5q.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7708"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rlb@defaultvalue.org, tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 03 19:34:47 2022 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 1ofPL4-0001oT-O3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 19:34:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60292 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofPL3-0006SP-EF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:34:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45342) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofPGg-00051O-53 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:30:14 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:37262) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ofPGf-0002NI-7t; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:30:13 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=0DaARZ3bdj9zOGWdukH4pqFfYKYVg9/9ESVKF0l9Gro=; b=sYeE71LSX3vz UTsO1DupwzbAdwZTaMlO2drPQpHuFAtQO6yymXQdvww5egjknZDaaqcZg+oB3ZS07TouHdFPG1pxA lecXYzvVg3VnUKhWneiq29jePeMW9WHnwI1HkycbPnUUC7H9mE0+Nz96ZlpJOpLG/Nm82jU48ZODp gkRy6FHWIYw+/o2uMxlTsQiGwqAgpQsusAhI3yHEmX/VCEzQ/WiqIkt6arqYtsmgvkua+KqmY7X+s nNSemChNafhgomsd3miMLzaRgBcns4ogM57IYZ9l5hPxMB1BQ04UJRmfRNYxTawDLrm/zPfV1LOtk C45gwfWp4uE4W7481DuIvQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1025 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 1ofPGe-0002xu-2F; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:30:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Mon, 03 Oct 2022 12:39:44 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:296772 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Rob Browning , tomas@tuxteam.de, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 12:39:44 -0400 > > > But Emacs does that all the time: there are many features that invoke > > sub-processes and many more features that write to the disk. I never > > heard anyone complaining seriously about that, and I'm quite sure many > > users don't even know which Emacs commands invoke subprocesses under > > the hood. > > FWIW, during the stealth jit-lock discussion, several people mentioned the > battery impact. Yes. And jit-stealth is different, in that it takes a much longer time for it to become quiet, because it works in small chinks, and only when Emacs is actually idle. JIT native-compilation is much faster, and also uses several execution units of the CPU in parallel. > And the issue is not subprocesses per se, but it's extra processing that > happens outside of the control of the user. How do you mean "outside of the control of the user"? The user causes it by loading a feature. If no new features are loaded, no native-compilation will happen. How is that different from any other command that uses a subprocess under the hood? > > So I'm not sure these complaints are based on real problems. Did > > anyone compare the "sudden swamp of the CPU" caused by JIT native > > compilation with what happens with other commands that invoke > > subprocesses? If so, did they present some quantitative data? > > Probably not, no. It's likely mostly a question of perception, so if we > could make it completely invisible the "problem" would disappear :-) > But the fact that lazy native compilation tends to pop up warnings (and > to make matters worse, it does so ... without warning) makes it very > much visible instead. On my system, I don't see any warnings.