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: State of the overlay tree branch? Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:30:55 +0200 Message-ID: <83po3zmf6o.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834lldp18f.fsf@gnu.org> <9646341d-700b-4240-216b-8c0e753fa79f@arkona-technologies.de> <86d03e78-9984-f33e-a3f3-3faa4b34d78b@arkona-technologies.de> <83vadso9ad.fsf@gnu.org> <5155d5e2-6b5c-581e-89fe-4f3af717304f@arkona-technologies.de> <4c82fcbd-961a-c6ca-b1f0-6b85665cb339@arkona-technologies.de> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521527362 11442 195.159.176.226 (20 Mar 2018 06:29:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:29:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Sebastian Sturm Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 20 07:29:17 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 1eyAlp-0002tO-6n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 07:29:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46414 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyAns-0000cC-A9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:31:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36041) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyAnI-0000bu-Vx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:30:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyAnE-00080P-Sl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:30:48 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:45601) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyAnE-00080E-PF; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:30:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3816 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1eyAnD-0003PU-Ox; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:30:44 -0400 In-reply-to: <4c82fcbd-961a-c6ca-b1f0-6b85665cb339@arkona-technologies.de> (message from Sebastian Sturm on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:23:02 +0100) 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:223847 Archived-At: > From: Sebastian Sturm > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:23:02 +0100 > > 1st run: > iteration 1: 0.001213 > iteration 2: 0.001170 > [...] > > after evaluating (test-highlight) the figures are as follows: > 1st run: > iteration 1: 0.026012 > iteration 2: 0.020334 So, between 20-fold and 100-fold slow-down. > I'm not allowed to share my employer's source code as a test case, so I > tried the same procedure with the similarly large DeclBase.h from the > public LLVM repository. To my surprise, DeclBase.h didn't suffer from > any performance issues at all. Switching to fundamental-mode while > visiting my file didn't change anything, so I assume that c-mode isn't > to blame either. So it's still a mystery why your original file produces such a large slowdown with overlays. Can you show the results of "M-x profiler-report" for the slow test with your original source file? It could have some clues. If that's impossible, I can only repeat my suggestion to use perf to find the code in Emacs that takes the lion's share of the processing time.