From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Garbage collector: is 800kb a good default? Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:42:18 +0300 Message-ID: <83mu7jmp8l.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83h7xsoi03.fsf@gnu.org> <834ktso4t2.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2r3n9q6.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="77580"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: dim1212k@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 10 15:43:20 2020 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 1jMtwE-000K46-U4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:43:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34534 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMtwD-0001QC-Uo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:43:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45222) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMtvZ-0000rZ-TX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:42:38 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:50867) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMtvZ-0006Kl-KH; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:42:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4744 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jMtvY-0006KD-O3; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:42:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:03:05 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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:246752 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: dim1212k@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:03:05 -0400 > > > We are miscommunicating. My complaint was about the _response_ time, > > which is the time that passes between me pressing a key and Emacs > > reacting to that. In your description above it is the time between > > "the user hits a key" and "the command starts". > > The user can't know when Emacs reacts to the key: in both cases there's > no sign of life until point 4 finishes (that's assuming the command is > something like self-insert-command where there's no user interaction > *during* the command). Even for self-insert-command, I can easily know whether the command started or not, because I have garbage-collection-messages turned on. And many commands do include user interaction. "C-x C-f" and "C-x b" come to mind. They are very frequent in my use patterns, and typically one of them happens after some amount of idle time, so idle timers kick in. As result, I needed to tune several long-running idle timers. I'd hate to see GC becoming one of them.