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: Timings for 'make check' with and without symbols with position Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:39:05 +0000 Message-ID: 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="26911"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D3scar?= Fuentes , David Engster , mattiase@acm.org, gregory@heytings.org, Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 26 17:40:02 2022 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 1nO070-0006t6-LD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 17:40:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34502 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nO06z-00081t-BT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:40:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55384) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nO06B-0007LY-6g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:39:11 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:55192 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nO068-0002Uq-Kn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:39:10 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 98550 invoked by uid 3782); 26 Feb 2022 16:39:06 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2e5d50e3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.80.227]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Feb 2022 17:39:05 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 8157 invoked by uid 1000); 26 Feb 2022 16:39:05 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=unavailable 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:286703 Archived-At: 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).