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: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps? Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 20:59:11 +0200 Message-ID: <83pmoefhmo.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83mtjwzwkb.fsf@gnu.org> <87r198ytog.fsf@gnus.org> <87zgnvyb5y.fsf@gnus.org> <87bl03j10s.fsf@gnus.org> <9D116A4B-622F-4C80-83E6-2CDD7ED9AD25@acm.org> <58bb8030d532070ed420@heytings.org> <838rv7mzn4.fsf@gnu.org> <58bb8030d5ec3a6bde9f@heytings.org> <837darmygd.fsf@gnu.org> <58bb8030d59733b52b8d@heytings.org> <83r18zkmd5.fsf@gnu.org> <835yq9ls7j.fsf@gnu.org> <058b682b11240176288f@heytings.org> <83h79tjd2f.fsf@gnu.org> <058b682b11f58780b580@heytings.org> <83v8y8ij39.fsf@gnu.org> <6a5bb5a08b3d764611f9@heytings.org> <83pmoghuho.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36162"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: mattiase@acm.org, larsi@gnus.org, acm@muc.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 26 20:01:22 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 1nCnXm-0009GP-JQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 20:01:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56890 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCnXl-0005QM-Ag for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 14:01:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38178) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCnVu-0003nP-F9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:59:26 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=39476 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCnVt-00020B-4O; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:59:25 -0500 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=xiSqKQRRl25pa7RV+EouwCt8XbpgwLlHJHACsPv/LtQ=; b=pOeV+GtENL+G P8EQfoEq4e0BFR/gmOdthHuvW7SVVRJHgcgsfk+c7V1x02KE+ZsXnbn+4g4wzepGMk0lMr1PBjsDu QJ5Row3IZdEHvEYowy8InsFCi8bW7WMbvulehNkOKcIPsuAYBGO4BgcxQnrH+8fDyMjqm3FsJ03L4 o363uVYNkqy6bfqNHgFhqspJFKrxMA/pCB2YcEJLR5LkNQyjWtVNy+Jh3+bgE3/GwOAOjicyu1YO/ Kf1/wnBwUoL6QvSQUd1XhRg5w7T4xXmTC7CZOH+z4iz4KMbItS4JYbPRY+Xz9X5ptoxAkOAhBYUbO Wta1nzbg3KFIaZ1+eBr22A==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1824 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 1nCnVs-0003UN-BC; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:59:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Gregory Heytings on Wed, 26 Jan 2022 18:41:57 +0000) 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:285449 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 18:41:57 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > Cc: mattiase@acm.org, larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, acm@muc.de > > > I think we need more measurements in scenarios closer to actual Emacs > > usage. One is intensive display operation -- I think Alan posted > > something to that effect. Another could be starting Gnus to read a > > large newsgroup. Yet another could be reindent a large piece of C or > > Python or Lisp code. Perhaps also "M-x occur" through a large buffer. > > Stuff like that -- any command that tends to be used frequently and is > > known to take a tangible amount of time. > > > > The problem is that, IME, such benchmarks do not show anything when the > slowdown is not significant enough (> 10%), because the measurements vary > a lot depending on external factors. Which external factors are those? > I wonder how Alan could conclude that there is a slowdown of "less > than 1%", when I run his benchmark on my (otherwise unloaded) > computer, the running times I get are anywhere between 17s and 20s. > Taking the average of such measures does not really make sense. That is not my experience: my measurements of these and other benchmarks are remarkably stable, as long as no heavy job (such as building some large package) is running in parallel. > However, I found one measurement that seems to give reasonably stable > results. On my Debian bookworm computer, with a standard build, on > src/xdisp.c, (benchmark-run 100 (occur "a.b")) needs on average (with 10 > runs) 7.42 seconds (standard deviation 0.04) on 3b33a14380 and 7.66 > seconds (standard deviation 0.05) on 7922131bb2. That's a >3% slowdown. OK, thanks.