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: Indentation and gc Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 20:49:31 +0200 Message-ID: <83v8j7unr8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20230310110747.4hytasakomvdyf7i.ref@Ergus> <20230310110747.4hytasakomvdyf7i@Ergus> <87a60k657y.fsf@web.de> <838rg4zmg9.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttyrwobj.fsf@localhost> <20230311111730.fatow74xnbel7t3f@Ergus> <83o7ozwju8.fsf@gnu.org> <87jzznwjh3.fsf@localhost> <83jzznwjeh.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsabwirg.fsf@localhost> <83h6urwhu0.fsf@gnu.org> <875yb7wgpd.fsf@localhost> <83bkkzwgcp.fsf@gnu.org> <87y1o3v1fr.fsf@localhost> <838rg3wf7k.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8j7v0a4.fsf@localhost> <835yb7were.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0tvuzpl.fsf@localhost> <834jqrwbgu.fsf@gnu.org> <87jzzn9pti.fsf@no.lan> <83wn3nurny.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6ur9lwe.fsf@no.lan> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5558"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: yantar92@posteo.net, spacibba@aol.com, arne_bab@web.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregor Zattler Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 11 19:50:26 2023 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 1pb4IT-0001D6-Cr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 19:50:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pb4I2-0007YR-Th; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 13:49:58 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pb4Hs-0007Y2-8N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 13:49:49 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pb4Hr-0006GS-GS; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 13:49:47 -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=yamjjJyx1yETKYqMu4f+84cV1C6aXEA3wzNG84Ib7h0=; b=a/J/WZfgi71/ kdmGVg97IBuY8wutKWCDyuxTvNpGWloeVkt7Ozx34Rm8B/j6pzMjJFNNOyP9nWAqP6NQw9mwfJCcp ryU39WJAB+2NBTSRDrA7zZu2wfX3n9Caj/E7NQ4phvZ8zavGF74R3Qbf61fV6ZVTz6wdAGQXkS0sn mYewEwEmJyUX3zd80aDvKmkQR+GLH5IgO4iz8aVArNu4iotMKy0tLBg9D7/CjTZ2fikG3qLAdaEpx VuJ0iOqbWyAAjSmahWE0m3beOKbi6Mui3spMVAyAOHECAtIl3CwCocN/B6UQxXbm85Om/MTeT5xIL 1etd4veSE/Vhzxgb/XEk8w==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (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 1pb4Hq-00040C-Sx; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 13:49:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87h6ur9lwe.fsf@no.lan> (message from Gregor Zattler on Sat, 11 Mar 2023 19:35:13 +0100) 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:304333 Archived-At: > From: Gregor Zattler > Cc: yantar92@posteo.net, spacibba@aol.com, arne_bab@web.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 19:35:13 +0100 > > > No. The limitation on the _increment_ should have nothing to do with > > how much memory is already consumed or how much total memory is > > available on the system. Imagine an Emacs with N MiB of memory > > footprint on a system that has N+1 MiB of memory available. > > > > IOW, what matters is how much is _left_, not how much is already used > > or totally available. > > At the moment Emacs does not adjust gc-cons-threshold > to how much memory is left but uses a static > gc-cons-threshold which is rather low. Ihor's > calculations use the same conservative rather low value > but scales it with overall memory. No, Ihor proposed to _enlarge_ the threshold if the total amount of memory is large enough. So the proposal does not keep the same conservative low value. > > "Therefore"? how does this follow from what you did? Your tuning is > > static and is appropriate for your usage. Others will most probably > > come up with different numbers using the same procedure. How do you > > propose to make this into some kind of auto-adjustment, when how much > > garbage is generated and the amount of slowdown this incurs depends on > > the Lisp programs that typically run? > > I did it statically because I lack the ability to > program an auto-adjusting solution. > > But it would be nice if gc-cons-threshold would be > adjusted after each garbage collection in relation to > the amount of time consumed in the last garbage > collections. We are discussing how to do that. I don't think there's a disagreement that if we can find a reasonable way of doing that, it will be nice to have it.