From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Split `simple.el'? Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 15:25:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: <5f1e960c-483f-4902-b4c2-b7a4ca3b04f4@default> <87sh89fsxl.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87o9iw3lak.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <83lge021r1.fsf@gnu.org> <83efjs1nnc.fsf@gnu.org> <83bmew1mu5.fsf@gnu.org> <837epk182x.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1523042645 1600 195.159.176.226 (6 Apr 2018 19:24:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 19:24:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 06 21:24:01 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f4Wxr-0000FT-SG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 21:23:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49618 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4Wzv-00088q-UI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 15:26:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55358) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4Wzp-00088W-Hf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 15:26:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4Wzl-0005Ha-Hb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 15:26:01 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:52312) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4Wzl-0005G4-9V; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 15:25:57 -0400 Original-Received: from lechazo.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id w36JPtDF017323; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:25:55 -0400 Original-Received: by lechazo.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 33A306035A; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:25:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <837epk182x.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 06 Apr 2018 21:52:06 +0300") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6259=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6259> : inlines <6552> : streams <1783390> : uri <2621590> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:224411 Archived-At: >> OK, I just tried it on my office's 2006 mac-mini (Core 2 Duo T7600) >> where the above says it has 437 fonts installed (removing the iso10646 >> constraint brings it up to 614): > I get 1244 and 1703, respectively, almost 3 times as many. And Drew seems to have yet another factor of 3 more. >> So a "normal" start takes ~0.7s and visiting the hello file brings it to >> ~1.5s hence adding less than a second. > I get 0.48s and 10.26s elapsed respectively, with 6s CPU time usage > for visiting HELLO. Wow, so almost 10s to display HELLO, compared to less than 1s in my case. That's a factor 10, i.e. significantly more than a factor 3. > I have three time as many fonts, and Emacs on Windows checks 2 font > back-ends before it gives up on characters that don't have any font > supporting them. Does this mean the same 1244 fonts (or a significant subset of them) get considered twice? If not, then it shouldn't necessarily make much of a difference, right? On X11 we also have several backends, and they probably have some overlap, but I'm not sure which ones are actively in use in my case. > The rest is OS differences regarding enumerating fonts and caching > them (or lack thereof) by the font back-end. That seems to impose a factor somewhere between 1.6 and 3.3 (depending on the impact of the double font backends) of slowdown in your case compared to mine. That doesn't sound outlandish. > As for "ancient", this is a 6 year-old core i7 box. But I don't think > CPU power is the main cost driver here, because I get the same times > from optimized and non-optimized builds. I think it is CPU-bound, but most of the CPU time is spent in libraries rather than in our own code. Stefan