From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Larger GC thresholds for non-interactive Emacs Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 14:49:49 +0200 Message-ID: <871qvm16he.fsf@gnus.org> References: <83bkuzznws.fsf@gnu.org> <877d5mqmkh.fsf@localhost> <83y1y2utnd.fsf@gnu.org> <87r13up587.fsf@localhost> <83o7yyur0l.fsf@gnu.org> <87leu2p3nu.fsf@localhost> <83leu2uewn.fsf@gnu.org> <87r13qv701.fsf@localhost> <83bkuursya.fsf@gnu.org> <87h74l9jk8.fsf@localhost> <83bkutqb3z.fsf@gnu.org> <9778F176-E724-4E61-B0FB-327BCDD316C0@acm.org> <87sfo4epeo.fsf@localhost> <87bkurrc5e.fsf@localhost> <87bkur72b7.fsf@gnus.org> <874k0j40e7.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28105"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Ihor Radchenko , Mattias =?utf-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= , Eli Zaretskii , Tim Cross , rms@gnu.org, Alan Mackenzie , emacs-devel To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 18 14:51:50 2022 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 1o2Xva-00076D-8d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 14:51:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51846 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o2XvY-0005MX-Tc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:51:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40322) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o2Xtn-0004IU-Oo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:49:59 -0400 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([2a01:4f9:2b:f0f::2]:57228) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o2Xtm-0002LB-5M; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:49:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=scIt2O3kJNjNGBDQOtNWWlp9+urTKD7ts65hjpOBxVQ=; b=PyzD1liT1ohgT+Byx/tZETiy5F tSen5FA06ECx3k9cNkVuWLO2WvO61yC/U6KNQ/PCuKZ5O1lKGx3MUeb+8Zry4usnaIqDkke3T/eW+ 5haWiHZb1+hH/lDcznx8+ElX82PMyv/E4mDEk5z5XGZcPkcIQQCm2ZjUhiGgAlDjLI4o=; Original-Received: from 77.18.220.249.tmi.telenormobil.no ([77.18.220.249] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o2Xtf-0006bt-03; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 14:49:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 17 Jun 2022 22:32:30 -0400") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a01:4f9:2b:f0f::2; envelope-from=larsi@gnus.org; helo=quimby.gnus.org X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:291360 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > Obviously this process ends up with a very large one-step allocation > which is arguably interesting in itself (I suspect there's some > GC-inhibition going on there), but the more interesting point > is that with p=0.1 we get an amount of free space after GC > (i.e. blocks we can't release, because of fragmentation) that's about as > large as the next threshold, i.e. about 10%, whereas with p=1.0 this > amount of unreleasable free space is significantly higher. As far as I know, we never actually release back cons space to the OS anyway -- even if we could. (Because glibc's malloc implementation doesn't do that unless we call that trim function, which we don't.) So I'm not sure that makes much difference -- especially in a batch process. > I think p=1.0 (and the corresponding implication that we use up about > twice as much memory as the minimum we need) might be an acceptable > tradeoff (for batch use), but I don't think I'd be comfortable going > beyond that. Right. We can still have the Emacs makefiles increase the threshold for build purposes even if we settle on a lower general level for --batch. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no