From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Third Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: macOS metal rendering engine in mac port Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 10:12:26 +0100 Message-ID: References: <83k0ni6pje.fsf@gnu.org> <83eedq6mvm.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33237"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Aaron Jensen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 29 11:13:29 2021 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 1lmv28-0008QD-DX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 11:13:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41052 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmv26-0002u8-GQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:13:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34634) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmv1J-0002Eb-Gy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:12:37 -0400 Original-Received: from outbound.soverin.net ([116.202.65.218]:40101) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmv1G-0008SL-Pf; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:12:36 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp.soverin.net (unknown [10.10.3.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95CC4600D6; Sat, 29 May 2021 09:12:30 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [159.69.232.138]) by soverin.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=idiocy.org; s=soverin; t=1622279550; bh=QCcfZVfZNsRy8yHurtDP+Jd1e4wvcdpo3pV2ld/IShM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=qblpPyL/v5Ge+UrNCAlKPwVUZi4gNrM2zmkJZ4jLleLno1pqvi6qsF1Pnif+vDB44 aEKlfuOg5Hh/1ZxHHnoGQ2fOIrcHu1bKWJriJ0O8MJoAJpsrlEZQhcfcz7EMCw6QMx 05FoZD9XsfJ5oJbZrzPoj9mbjmjeKgWhuT8sgx+5TGZlzH36H5ELpeeBl2KqZzKkDM NLDj6hIqHRuSLv5ybvVujoT/g9fIwuExEeXaNDVAZ3JaBQLHa7QlJS21hjDRiuep01 lBXjFcYdX+IhleXuSpTYQ5dvHO5GrkaeF5kkSUxeyDSWvtOyWcl2zx4gBx2Jr7/FtK wZOsXz1mbnyiA== Original-Received: from alan by faroe.holly.idiocy.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmv18-000Qb5-BR; Sat, 29 May 2021 10:12:26 +0100 Mail-Followup-To: Alan Third , Aaron Jensen , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.65.218; envelope-from=alan@idiocy.org; helo=outbound.soverin.net X-Spam_score_int: -26 X-Spam_score: -2.7 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.7 / 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_SBL_A=0.1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:270040 Archived-At: On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 01:52:35AM -0700, Aaron Jensen wrote: > > emacs -Q never really felt slow in terms of typing latency. In terms > of the scroll benchmark, I got: > > w/o patch: 26.8s first run, 3.84s second run > w/ patch: 25.1s first run, 3.6s second run > > With my emacs config that has, with everything loaded, 1156 faces, I get: > > w/o patch: 18.6s on second run (at least 9s of which are attributed to > TAGGEDP and CONSP from lface_from_face_name_no_resolve) > w/ patch: 6.1s on second run > > The impact is drastic. It makes me wonder if we're doing something very silly with faces in the NS port, but after a quick look through I don't see anything obvious. I don't really know what I'd be looking for though. One thing I know that's odd in the NS port is that we work out which face we need on the fly, whereas the other terms seem to have a central function that works out the faces early. But I don't believe that should have any effect as it all appears to be fairly simple lookups. -- Alan Third