From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug-reference-prog-mode slows down CC Mode's scrolling by ~7% Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2021 11:00:53 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83a6kuyysv.fsf@gnu.org> <837dfwyird.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31334"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 04 17:02:49 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 1mMXBw-0007y0-Ff for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 17:02:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44466 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMXBv-00070M-Bj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 11:02:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40014) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMXAD-0004ms-SG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 11:01:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:35200) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMXAB-0003BP-0S; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 11:01:00 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 30035440571; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 11:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D6E2044058F; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 11:00:54 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1630767654; bh=cXFviCt/IRIbUu+05r6a2QZdqUfgifDsdw6ANx1S64k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=gaRHHujjegoIn84A3CZ1TA24jjBoaNWC1ObDXr5nFggb1YF6GUr7/5LC4WtbpWUHh dJBfs2rx/2cuIxP0SoNbBnCYN6NGdcLbisyYRWxOBrgTXwnxpYvukTWMKuyU0XZgnW H3dIcsBGwasU1/OJgJZQAu17NwbAi7Bg70gdAOEK+V+EbXyw1MtLTc5p/ZQUlW/boT 7sPsbjLmNA+Szgs9K4qz88tHPgBwGvIN33EHMCf55nMGcdTMAwXIoS8JWP0OKmzD0H eBlf8S+mFtXEn1CW+pvRqNijAl0zO7uvDCuWlo7FjSrkvxUU+dMb4x7eiBRLKqCDIP mT01dbyjTdrHQ== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [104.247.244.135]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 727E1120235; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 11:00:54 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Sat, 4 Sep 2021 14:50:10 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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: 2.1.23 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:273898 Archived-At: > , it takes 27.9s. So it would seem the cost of having a jit-lock > function returning a jit-lock-bounds structure when it's not the first > function is high. That's using the strategy of a full refontification of > the "extra" regions of the buffer returned in that structure. How does it compare to the performance with the old/current jit-lock code? > Maybe that strategy is not optimal. I think it leads to many calls to the client functions with small regions, which for font-lock at least is not optimal indeed. Maybe to speed things up, another option is to grow the chunk size a bit. Stefan