From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug-reference-prog-mode slows down CC Mode's scrolling by ~7% Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2021 16:05:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83a6kuyysv.fsf@gnu.org> <837dfwyird.fsf@gnu.org> <835yvgwdxb.fsf@gnu.org> <8335qkwddv.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="8055"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 04 18:06:40 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 1mMYBk-0001tB-Da for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 18:06:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46638 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMYBj-0007iw-Fc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 12:06:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49022) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMYAx-0006HC-Pm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 12:05:51 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:20316 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMYAu-0007Pa-MY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 12:05:51 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 1954 invoked by uid 3782); 4 Sep 2021 16:05:45 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2e5d5226.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.82.38]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 18:05:44 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 6485 invoked by uid 1000); 4 Sep 2021 16:05:44 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8335qkwddv.fsf@gnu.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable 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:273916 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 18:48:12 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2021 15:43:40 +0000 > > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > > Indeed. With jit-lock-chunk-size at 2000, time-scroll on xdisp.c takes: > > > > (current code): 16.4s > > > > (new proposed code): 16.1s > > > > .. This speed up may well be particular to CC Mode. > > > > Let's try jit-lock-chunk-size at 8000: > > > > (current code): 15.1s > > > > (new proposed code): 15.1s > > > > .. So, yes, it would seem a larger chunk size is advantageous for CC > > > > Mode. > > > How large (in lines and columns) is your window? The above numbers > > > are only meaningful with the window size. > > I'm running in a window with 65 lines and 118 columns. > That's significantly larger than the default size. Can you repeat > your experiments with the default size set by "emacs -Q", for > reference? My previous timings were on a Linux console tty. Moving to X, and starting Emacs with emacs --no-desktop, I get 34 Lines and 80 columns. With my new propose jit-lock code I get the following timings with these jit-lock-chunk-sizes: (500): 24.5s (2000): 18.0s (8000): 16.4s .. So it would seem, at least in CC Mode, a larger jit-lock-chunk-size is advantageous on a default size GUI Emacs, too. I haven't measured it, but I suspect 8000 would make the display of a single screen slower, because ~4 screens will be getting fontified per chunk (at default screen size). 2000 might well be worth going for. > Thanks. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).