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: Some experience with the igc branch Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 16:08:31 +0200 Message-ID: <86ikr3sxwg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87o713wwsi.fsf@telefonica.net> <867c7lw081.fsf@gnu.org> <87seq93uo7.fsf@protonmail.com> <86h66oupd4.fsf@gnu.org> <87o70wlzpg.fsf@protonmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39308"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, stefankangas@gmail.com, ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com, acorallo@gnu.org To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 28 15:09:16 2024 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 1tRXVD-000A1G-Qk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:09:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRXUb-0004Bw-La; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:08:37 -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 1tRXUa-0004Bo-CX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:08:36 -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 1tRXUZ-0001mQ-J6; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:08:35 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=snEbx2YJ2VP3kzGJiOYKuzMErHh0zAU4iLWGrCfSdKY=; b=ZA+UwLTwO1rUdp77dnES Cm9bIm93gurlhAyryMf0Z87lzV7qiCmSlFTtZ/Vbo3mjOvdwsJjlOXqvbBH80lQmuseWihBG9un1o gQ+h7vmgamra0wXF/DpQqmmVvCtG1oZzvAhzppW8r6P4IPV/MkptHGDvnx3CDPMPIjWZ5CQQSNo7n zgMTS2/DRyo3q0eOLLOP12Vk1BaLZZ/dHGiXGxVYeT4goAYGCVMwWB1++JZ0DWZXQUr47TpVG6/5E r//I3PigLcldsbqPhOgMv4zjMoZ1NxBoTqTwwhyvOC3KOpdSBquCEq9GHUEuL7U4AjiOXZzualfEb L0YrnzqeU5TrXg==; In-Reply-To: <87o70wlzpg.fsf@protonmail.com> (message from Pip Cet on Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:12:18 +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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:327264 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:12:18 +0000 > From: Pip Cet > Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, stefankangas@gmail.com, ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com, acorallo@gnu.org > > "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > > >> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 17:26:04 +0000 > >> From: Pip Cet > >> Cc: Gerd Möllmann , stefankangas@gmail.com, ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com, acorallo@gnu.org > >> > >> "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > >> > >> > - Concurrent. The GC runs in its own thread. There are no explicit > >> > calls to start GC, and Emacs doesn't have to wait for the GC to > >> > complete. > >> > > >> > Pip says this is not true? > >> > >> I'm a bit confused. Right now, on scratch/igc, on GNU/Linux, for Emacs > >> in batch mode, it isn't technically true. > > > > Then how do you explain the fact that, when igc does GC (as evidenced > > by the echo-area messages if you enable garbage-collection-messages), > > Emacs is not stopped, as it happens with the old GC? If GC is done on > > the main thread, it means the main thread should stop while GC is in > > progress, and yet I don't see it stopping. What did I miss? > > I have no idea how you "see it stopping". Like we always do: try scrolling through xdisp.c, and you will see Emacs stop from time to time for a split-second, then resume scrolling. If you set garbage-collection-messages non-nil, you will see a GC message when it stops for that time. With igc, the scrolling is continuous, at least in my perception. Similar "stuttering" happens in other repeated operations that have clear visible effects. > Incremental GC happens in increments, which take less time > individually than a full GC cycle would, so interactions are > smoother. Separate threads are certainly not required for that > (neither is incremental GC, in all cases; mark-and-sweep collectors > can be interrupted, discarding the mark bits). Maybe you are right. But the difference should be quite significant to explain what I see.