unofficial mirror of emacs-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: emacs communication with subprocess is slow
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 21:32:31 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <83zjddgg1s.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <851tqpf3e1.fsf@stephe-leake.org>

> From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 12:51:18 -0500
> 
> This may be related to http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=18420
> 
> I'm using Emacs pretest 24.3.93, with the patch from 18240, on Windows 7.
> 
> I've run into another problem with Emacs communication with external
> processes; there seems to be a delay on every task switch. This shows up
> both when sending data to the subprocess, and when reading from it.
> 
> I haven't tested this on Debian yet.
> 
> The delay is not present in Emacs 24.3 on Windows 7.
> 
> When sending the contents of an Emacs buffer (source code to be parsed)
> to the subprocess, if the read buffer in the subprocess is
> large enough to hold the entire contents, no delay is apparent. However,
> if the buffer is smaller, so that several reads are needed, then a delay
> appears. 

Sorry, I don't understand: Emacs 24.3 would simply deaqdlock in this
situation, as we have established in bug #18420.  But you say that not
only does it not hang, it is even faster.  What am I missing?

And what exactly does "large enough" mean here?  What sizes are we
talking about?

Also, can you quantify the delays?

> I can use a large buffer in my subprocess for read as a workaround, but
> I have no control over the read buffer in Emacs (perhaps that could be
> added?).

You could try playing with 2 parameters that currently are fixed: the
size of the pipe buffer (set by pipe2 in w32.c, where we use 0 which
AFAIK defaults to 4KB); and the delay used by send_process in
process.c when it gets EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK from the 'write' call
(currently 20 milliseconds).

> Should I reopen 18240, or start a new bug?

A new one, of course.  This is an entirely different issue.



  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-03 18:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-03 17:51 emacs communication with subprocess is slow Stephen Leake
2014-10-03 18:32 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2014-10-03 22:04   ` David Kastrup
2014-10-04  6:51   ` Stephen Leake

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=83zjddgg1s.fsf@gnu.org \
    --to=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
    --cc=stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).