From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Richard M. Stallman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GC (was: lists.texi) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:40:28 -0400 Message-ID: References: <200506182319.j5INJWF08937@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506202312.j5KNCct19091@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506212058.j5LKw5P23961@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <874qbqh0lm.fsf@jurta.org> <87mzpf3a5v.fsf_-_@jurta.org> <87y88zv3vm.fsf@jurta.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1119719024 32407 80.91.229.2 (25 Jun 2005 17:03:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 25 19:03:35 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DmE47-00088s-9x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:03:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DmEBN-0008Oh-Vx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:11:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DmE4P-0004C3-JL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:03:54 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DmE4C-00042e-N2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:03:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DmE4B-0003G9-Vu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:03:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DmDmi-0005BV-CJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:45:36 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1DmDhk-0004Fo-PM; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:40:28 -0400 Original-To: snogglethorpe@gmail.com, miles@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Miles Bader on Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:15:19 +0900) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:39508 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:39508 Yes I think that would be a good idea. Setting the cons-threshold to say 1 or 2% of RAM size would yield roughly the numbers which are being recommended (at 1%, you'd get 640K on a 64MB system, and 5MB on a 512MB system). Getting that number is system-dependent of course, but there seems no reason not to do it on systems where someone wants to write the code (it can even be done in lisp on [GNU/]linux, by reading /proc/meminfo). If you'd like to implement this, please go ahead. This is maybe not a good idea for people who runs emacs on a big server with a lot a memory and a lot of users (my emacs is running on a server with 8Gb of RAM -- 66 users are currently using it --, but wasting 80Mo between each GC doesn't seem very smart) We could put a cap on the default made this way, of no more than 10mb, say. Or we could use a function that tapers off.