unofficial mirror of emacs-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Cc: "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>,
	"David Engster" <deng@randomsample.de>,
	mattiase@acm.org, gregory@heytings.org,
	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>,
	larsi@gnus.org
Subject: Timings for 'make check' with and without symbols with position
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:39:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YhpXqRZcl/qL1HlZ@ACM> (raw)

Hello Emacs.

I'm starting a new thread about this, since the old one (Subject: Time
to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps?) has become
long, and we've drifted from the original topic.

Using perf, I've measured the difference in run time for 'make check'
between two comparable versions of Emacs, one with symbols with
position ("new"), the other without ("old").  They were both built
without native compilation, and their configurations were identical.
'make check' had already been run once, to compile (almost) all of the
test .elc files.

Short summary: The new build is slower than the old by 12.6%.  perf
counted 419k samples on the new, 372k samples on the old.

What is taking the extra time is largely the garbage collection:  I
filtered perf's output successively for the strings "mark" and "sweep",
and include those functions with at least 0.1% of the run time.

For "old":
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
 20.38%  emacs     emacs              [.] mark_object
  3.36%  emacs     emacs              [.] pdumper_marked_p_impl
  2.98%  emacs     emacs              [.] mark_char_table
  1.22%  emacs     emacs              [.] pdumper_set_marked_impl
  1.03%  emacs     emacs              [.] mark_vectorlike
  0.28%  emacs     emacs              [.] mark_compiled
  0.11%  emacs     emacs              [.] mark_interval_tree_1

  0.80%  emacs  emacs  [.] sweep_strings
  0.69%  emacs  emacs  [.] sweep_conses
  0.32%  emacs  emacs  [.] sweep_vectors
  0.12%  emacs  emacs  [.] sweep_intervals
--------
 31.29%  total
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

For "new":
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
 23.17%  emacs  emacs         [.] mark_object
  3.97%  emacs  emacs         [.] pdumper_marked_p_impl
  3.79%  emacs  emacs         [.] mark_char_table
  1.46%  emacs  emacs         [.] pdumper_set_marked_impl
  1.22%  emacs  emacs         [.] mark_vectorlike
  0.32%  emacs  emacs         [.] mark_compiled

  0.76%  emacs  emacs  [.] sweep_strings
  0.66%  emacs  emacs  [.] sweep_conses
  0.42%  emacs  emacs  [.] sweep_vectors
  0.10%  emacs  emacs  [.] sweep_intervals
--------
 35.87%  total
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Increasing the new build's 35.87% by 12.6%, to give a fair comparison
with the old build, gives us 40.40%.  More precisely, the new build's
garbage collection took 40.40% of the old build's run time.

Thus garbage collection accounts for 40.40% - 31.29% = 9.11% of the
12.6% difference between the old and new builds.

Clearly, any attempt to speed up the new build will involve optimising
the garbage collection somehow.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).



             reply	other threads:[~2022-02-26 16:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-26 16:39 Alan Mackenzie [this message]
2022-02-26 16:55 ` Timings for 'make check' with and without symbols with position Eli Zaretskii
2022-02-27 12:15   ` Alan Mackenzie
2022-02-27 12:34     ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-03-01 19:59       ` Alan Mackenzie

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YhpXqRZcl/qL1HlZ@ACM \
    --to=acm@muc.de \
    --cc=deng@randomsample.de \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
    --cc=gregory@heytings.org \
    --cc=larsi@gnus.org \
    --cc=mattiase@acm.org \
    --cc=ofv@wanadoo.es \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).