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 18:24:04 +0200 Message-ID: <83zg8juuhn.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> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="26046"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: yantar92@posteo.net, spacibba@aol.com, arne_bab@web.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lynn Winebarger Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 11 17:24:40 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 1pb21P-0006Zb-P0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 17:24:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pb219-00048v-0D; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 11:24:23 -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 1pb216-00047i-Rg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 11:24:21 -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 1pb216-0001qx-EF; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 11:24:20 -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=jLH0trqp0RRRRH9L+y7y9sA/laMcTyekzPgOj4aeHtE=; b=QniXDv3QW1fA t/rPySm+y6ZnF4vZG5PrMPMQxg1JLS7/wABZd7Ep/mjef13/SwfjFGXS0Sgm+7+GqPD51nzT7YrvF zlUcC4QAciiIrWoeK9mikCctv81AuX/m8YAURIRa0kCJtn05Hux5BwbfcVZy0rARpFEconIx+FWfc GutCkiucotkdU8btV96Fpf8N4jsH6VlsdlCtoqnv/9E6T3Rcyz4zNS499yPmxHqzDoSdCykDz7gdt ii07GsYhrPGhcL8HbuHPXsoEWKmIgxuNosAmf9apKjuGyVgRSIfsj/ZCwLu8FyB22kzwNhLOTOpA+ e6vjYwc1mQ5GxalLA1Fkqw==; 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 1pb215-0005gw-UD; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 11:24:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Lynn Winebarger on Sat, 11 Mar 2023 10:52:32 -0500) 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:304328 Archived-At: > From: Lynn Winebarger > Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 10:52:32 -0500 > Cc: Ihor Radchenko , spacibba@aol.com, arne_bab@web.de, > emacs-devel > > On Sat, Mar 11, 2023, 10:32 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Again, you are reasoning about the value as if it were related to the > maximum memory footprint Emacs could have. But in fact, it is related > only to the _increment_ of memory Emacs can have before it should stop > and consider how much of that is garbage. > > So, should there be a parameter that controls the maximum amount of memory emacs is allowed to allocate > (and not just in the lisp heap), like an internal ulimit? We already have that: the 85% of total memory, where we display a warning. However, on many modern systems, knowing how much memory Emacs actually uses is not easy/reliable, I think. So any such limitation would be similarly unreliable. > The uncertainty of that limit in a given system appears to be motivating the calibration of these gc > parameters. I don't think so. The issue at hand is not how much total memory a given system can use, the issue is how much of it remains available, after what the programs already running consumed.