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: Indentation and gc Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 15:39:44 +0000 Message-ID: <87zg8gy81r.fsf@localhost> References: <20230310110747.4hytasakomvdyf7i.ref@Ergus> <20230310110747.4hytasakomvdyf7i@Ergus> <87a60k657y.fsf@web.de> <838rg4zmg9.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttys4dge.fsf@web.de> <83sfebyepp.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttyru4zt.fsf@web.de> <83fsabyb41.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt4jtpqf.fsf@web.de> <83ilf7wi48.fsf@gnu.org> <878rg3wh2f.fsf@localhost> <87a60jtg0z.fsf@web.de> <877cvmumjq.fsf@localhost> <83356aukkh.fsf@gnu.org> <87y1o2t45i.fsf@localhost> <83wn3mt33c.fsf@gnu.org> <873568d7ac.fsf@localhost> <83a60gu0ma.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="33106"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: arne_bab@web.de, spacibba@aol.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 13 16:38:41 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 1pbkG0-0008P1-2V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:38:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pbkFl-0006e1-7Z; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:38:25 -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 1pbkFj-0006aJ-2n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:38:23 -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 1pbkFh-0004jP-5K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:38:22 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B42AC24033A for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:38:18 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1678721898; bh=jDH60OAH5p5uTdizjuHwDHXo3s/YRSYevuShJ/hTmnU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=b/dOcaXnNS8Yzi6XgmCB2bEXMSadLRUI8OPjSYbENEj3q1gRg2SUD39iarhiLGOeo 4df6E3czDFxY5uJRpM4dPrcVI/u+otNkt0Knva+ltqtMaKSsrkMD1RNo3sW0V0AxGf UQYlkTF6jBWSYmrGCQY6HsiiWA7XMQcCd5s9QGkdtP7HZZlu1l/MusdUXGKu/lC8tz EsEPl7eCCTJ8JiCPJsnulmUab3wjvyHpWRKQVfYLaPOxPGXTPH6Dz8zFA2l4/FofCm sxGPyKLd7P06zpU8DdSbQLJ/sAWdnIv9QY1g8p13KiEcgzW4CBBPj4X+Qyw+L6xH1f JuTAhaFS7lJiQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Pb15Q0p7Kz9rxD; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:38:17 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <83a60gu0ma.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_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:304400 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >> Indeed. But despite all of the best efforts, fragmentation increases if >> >> we delay GCs, right? >> > >> > Not IME, no. That's why the memory footprint of a typical >> > long-running session levels out. >> >> Then what is the mechanism of gc-cons-threshold affecting the Emacs >> memory footprint? > > Because higher threshold increases the probability that some free > memory couldn't be released to the OS. So, fragmentation? Or do we mis-communicate? For me, memory fragmentation is when memory cannot be released to OS and/or cannot be re-used to store new objects. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at