From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps? Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 18:41:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83mtjwzwkb.fsf@gnu.org> <87r198ytog.fsf@gnus.org> <87zgnvyb5y.fsf@gnus.org> <87bl03j10s.fsf@gnus.org> <9D116A4B-622F-4C80-83E6-2CDD7ED9AD25@acm.org> <58bb8030d532070ed420@heytings.org> <838rv7mzn4.fsf@gnu.org> <58bb8030d5ec3a6bde9f@heytings.org> <837darmygd.fsf@gnu.org> <58bb8030d59733b52b8d@heytings.org> <83r18zkmd5.fsf@gnu.org> <835yq9ls7j.fsf@gnu.org> <058b682b11240176288f@heytings.org> <83h79tjd2f.fsf@gnu.org> <058b682b11f58780b580@heytings.org> <83v8y8ij39.fsf@gnu.org> <6a5bb5a08b3d764611f9@heytings.org> <83pmoghuho.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32474"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: mattiase@acm.org, larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, acm@muc.de To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 26 19:53:31 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 1nCnQ5-0007zf-1L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:53:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51640 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCnQ3-0001Id-Gc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:53:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33532) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCnF3-0006ZU-Te for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:42:02 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:42954) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCnF2-0007rk-6G; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:42:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1643222517; bh=iUe/MlKQq1JfMSFn85LC/mjbTRLU9sElzfRosKKvUoM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=4yl6lctC5QtsXLPt8oTCZgHuc0wSkpueW/72rlUHBGC3vujJpwqH0O7l1bCzl58h+ j+c3152ovsk/YPHPLnp3acGIBPQbsBBiagBBFEvIWT/90cGHSY8sqozW4s2jEUBhcU 0c2TBotUgIiLY3T7+A0GS4K88KdtzpOLZqjY05ir40Ujfg9QPXIUy5Hjvm2oIQ/8p/ 5GYEk5/a+l11Tt7GUtw63wjyok800PZBMQ9aCuAGTKULdN+wJHWnv0b3oCJYvKxXX9 lwtTLy660eS1mWahLB9pVKWyoixlRAGxHVtu4I+f6xeyjpGrG9Y1T5bjKgzOxLm/yq UBbmGicTy9c/w== In-Reply-To: <83pmoghuho.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.142.160.155; envelope-from=gregory@heytings.org; helo=heytings.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:285447 Archived-At: > > I think we need more measurements in scenarios closer to actual Emacs > usage. One is intensive display operation -- I think Alan posted > something to that effect. Another could be starting Gnus to read a > large newsgroup. Yet another could be reindent a large piece of C or > Python or Lisp code. Perhaps also "M-x occur" through a large buffer. > Stuff like that -- any command that tends to be used frequently and is > known to take a tangible amount of time. > The problem is that, IME, such benchmarks do not show anything when the slowdown is not significant enough (> 10%), because the measurements vary a lot depending on external factors. I wonder how Alan could conclude that there is a slowdown of "less than 1%", when I run his benchmark on my (otherwise unloaded) computer, the running times I get are anywhere between 17s and 20s. Taking the average of such measures does not really make sense. However, I found one measurement that seems to give reasonably stable results. On my Debian bookworm computer, with a standard build, on src/xdisp.c, (benchmark-run 100 (occur "a.b")) needs on average (with 10 runs) 7.42 seconds (standard deviation 0.04) on 3b33a14380 and 7.66 seconds (standard deviation 0.05) on 7922131bb2. That's a >3% slowdown.