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: Concurrency via isolated process/thread Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 16:32:03 +0000 Message-ID: <87o7kpxapo.fsf@localhost> References: <871qhnr4ty.fsf@localhost> <83v8ezk3cj.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8ezpov0.fsf@localhost> <83r0pnk2az.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm57pns8.fsf@localhost> <87lefvp55t.fsf@yahoo.com> <87sfa28ura.fsf@localhost> <87cz16o8vz.fsf@yahoo.com> <87jzve8r4m.fsf@localhost> <871qhmo5nv.fsf@yahoo.com> <87bkgq8p5t.fsf@localhost> <831qhmjwk0.fsf@gnu.org> <875y6y8nlr.fsf@localhost> <87h6qhnalc.fsf@yahoo.com> <87ilax71wo.fsf@localhost> <831qhli14t.fsf@gnu.org> <87wmzdxewc.fsf@localhost> <83r0plgjeo.fsf@gnu.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="38716"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 06 18:33:22 2023 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 1qHRv0-0009lg-8l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 18:33:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHRu7-0001HL-1Z; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:32:27 -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 1qHRtv-0000qY-MJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:32:16 -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 1qHRts-0007aV-S5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:32:15 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAC90240027 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 18:32:01 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1688661122; bh=JotI4lOddLLIm+KPcytNGtSP9g29McgPJO7GLoyy06A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=kdyncvi8wbrr+oqEQrv/6DeFLQs947lT/kx3Xajm0f2h9W9uI9bsWCPQNfsuJhwv0 E0USWlocP0Mn2M/y63uHVHwJr3pNkcwaab+m9Qoq9F8M0CKPAsNyIPgaunDOZ+HLHK PQARpE8GzX13t9DqTxED5zm2JSUW5R6MUcH59Z8YeHmY4JaIEkL2NxCzgmNgSrQkcc Pci7iSALs7C0w218o//EPu9Y7jStM20sfUD99NvnePRg+aX7B5oi3i0kvpW2vIddjq V+Z6+YiGXS2BxkyCUJ2esbFOLp+PTimVUqntSBaNz3qs/AFQy3RGVH4VXQ0Two8/Vg iC048miGC0jzg== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4QxhrK3Jxbz6tx8; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 18:32:01 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83r0plgjeo.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 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:307520 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> AFAIU, this is memory allocation. Taking a good one second in this case. >> 3.37% emacs emacs [.] allocate_vectorlike > > It is? Which part(s) of allocate_vectorlike take these 3.37% of run > time? It does much more than just allocate memory. Sorry, but I have no idea. The above is what I see from perf report. For comparison, this is how things look like with Org parser version that allocated 1.5-2x more memory (proper strings instead of buffer positions and proper strings instead of interned constant strings): 18.39% emacs emacs [.] exec_byte_code 13.80% emacs emacs [.] re_match_2_internal 6.56% emacs emacs [.] re_compile_pattern 5.09% emacs emacs [.] allocate_vectorlike 4.35% emacs emacs [.] re_search_2 3.57% emacs emacs [.] Fmemq 3.13% emacs emacs [.] find_interval So, my efforts did reduce the time spent in allocate_vectorlike. Note, however, that these two datapoints differ more than just by how memory is allocated. But 5% CPU time spend allocating memory is not insignificant. >> These are just CPU cycles. I am not sure if there are any other >> overheads related to memory allocation that translate into extra user time. > > Well, we need to be pretty damn sure before we consider this a fact, > don't we? Sure. Though my argument was less about how long Emacs spends allocating memory and more about how frequently a typical Elisp code requests such allocations. I have a gut feeling that even if taking short time, frequent interrupts may create intermittent typing delays. >> > ... But the global lock used by the Lisp threads we have is actually >> > such a lock, and the results are well known. >> >> To be fair, global lock is an extreme worst-case scenario. > > If you consider the fact that the global state in Emacs is huge, maybe > it is a good approximation to what will need to be locked anyway? Not every thread will need to use global state, except maybe memory allocation. Or do I miss an elephant in the room? > You forget buffers, windows, frames, variables, and other global stuff. Those will only matter when we try to access them from multiple threads, no? If a thread is working with a temporary buffer and locks it, that buffer has almost 0 chance to be accessed by another thread. Same with variables - even if some global variable needs to be locked, it is unlikely that it will need to be accessed by another thread. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at