From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MPS: User GC customizations Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 18:28:28 +0000 Message-ID: <87h6d59flf.fsf@localhost> References: <87v81pbgzi.fsf@localhost> <87y16khvhy.fsf@localhost> <87frspqwhr.fsf@localhost> <87tth5pdqc.fsf@localhost> <87le2h47kj.fsf@localhost> <86a5ix82nt.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8248"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , pipcet@protonmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com To: Gerd =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 04 20:28:03 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 1sPRBa-0001vA-GP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 20:28:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sPRAp-00031o-2A; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:27:15 -0400 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 1sPRAi-00031B-Nr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:27:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sPRAZ-0001uE-LS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:27:08 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE1B924002A for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:26:56 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1720117617; bh=qRXW98RWe7hXKAeLCJp5h1pM8BplORpd2fwM+gKlErE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:From; b=P/t+aY4ANqbpEIfjmLbqEdOofaNORpK7/FHUr7cTtotjcCIILXH0Q8RpHnMFL6lZZ jIlxEZpj1CRJWcTpSeM8+PtkGKMsboassvu32fHmF3Yyt42rfHTcpFfoEYBAyIDwxd kxYL7EE9MtBzDxEmX8ochUfn2UNIkCbxji54WM7jgg7KQbJmrbVxQ7FzniOV4uW7BX ReRcNGsTj/StjWiO8sgyc5UvGk8TglVUlPCu+n+HFMKPvRMPOQ8PKhL88oHV1q1mdU 6nUaodVEP7rek8EgOJ7wgXwXow7GsGHdtBEHYkJq+amenSpgyCuwotKAGiCIVDXAgq K0mGusPyL9mfQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4WFQ8w1PZ8z6tvh; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:26:56 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:321350 Archived-At: Gerd M=C3=B6llmann writes: > Pip mentioned scan functions, so let's say we set a flag in_scan while > being in dflt_scan. MPS now calls dflt_scan, in the MPS thread, to do an > increment of its work. While in dflt_scan we get SIGPROF and land in the > signal handler in main thread, and the profiler sees in_scan =3D=3D true. > > Q: do we count that as part of GC work that the profiler should report, > although it happened in the MPS thread? I understood Ihor as saying that > he doesn't want that. I think that we should ideally have multiple flags like this: 1. when arena is locked 2. when our dflt_scan code is running 3. when we query MPS synchronously (e.g. memory allocation) 4. when Emacs thread is paused by MPS Then, we can report statistics for each flag. I think that it can give us some idea about how different aspects of MPS affect Emacs responsiveness. --=20 Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at