From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Pip Cet via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Some experience with the igc branch Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:12:18 +0000 Message-ID: <87o70wlzpg.fsf@protonmail.com> References: <87o713wwsi.fsf@telefonica.net> <867c7lw081.fsf@gnu.org> <87seq93uo7.fsf@protonmail.com> <86h66oupd4.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Pip Cet 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="744"; 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: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 28 15:09:56 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 1tRXVr-000Abj-DV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:09:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRXV0-0004Jr-5X; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:09:02 -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 1tRWcH-0002ud-4S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:12:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-10629.protonmail.ch ([79.135.106.29]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRWcF-0002eA-Co for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:12:28 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1735391544; x=1735650744; bh=tLB2RB3qeIE0cqZ7nT9Q2CWw3lJs1lH9LjnxBOrXC9E=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector:List-Unsubscribe:List-Unsubscribe-Post; b=KWdPD8NsUN7ILU7vYVTxIdmj0vQTX/Ft5rniUTzxWv3vo2AG1UngVUaSOTq4n+2Iz vsluLISYtxxi4N8m7bvb95gU6wNKwEXRffkWvXVREZo6KbOKJlW/td5gLNkzTACksN OO597FNEtnmQgRwNsshPvOsKFmU/IgoXOEFleIxcG27JIhaVMomizz3CbQ53VGVH/5 SPoVuhEuBwLrQTG0W1QTc3/MOUtJ7Ns2glO10JQ8+KiLddgPEc1aS2+t72znm9DY6e jtahxRG0QoktJD5JGchaA6KzYLEOZIAhCfFWtWpJYDQgcZu95xRPbjwB2fduvtXQz/ DChSlFPA5qVJg== In-Reply-To: <86h66oupd4.fsf@gnu.org> Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: 41f3c532c8962c523742419dd9711b2cc125a5fa Received-SPF: pass client-ip=79.135.106.29; envelope-from=pipcet@protonmail.com; helo=mail-10629.protonmail.ch 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:09:00 -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:327268 Archived-At: "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 17:26:04 +0000 >> From: Pip Cet >> Cc: Gerd M=C3=B6llmann , stefankangas@gmail.co= m, ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com, acorallo@gn= u.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". 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). Pip