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: read-process-output-max (was: Emacs HTTP libraries) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:01:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87r1jxd3d8.fsf@gnu.org> <8e549f23-db75-2ef1-4399-0fb52e5efa6f@gnu.org> <87zgykn5qc.fsf@gnus.org> <83sg4ckbfw.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtukn463.fsf@gnus.org> <83o8f0kaoj.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtukk9b3.fsf@gnu.org> <2e968b98-2264-03e7-d0b2-5570c94b6fb7@gmail.com> <838s64k3xk.fsf@gnu.org> <8260671e-df0a-e471-79fb-82f80e11696a@gmail.com> <837dlok1zj.fsf@gnu.org> <83zgyjj1yf.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="36839"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: cpitclaudel@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, "T.V Raman" To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 31 18:10:54 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 1lRdQk-0009SR-36 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:10:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58884 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lRdQj-0006yz-1P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:10:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36878) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lRdHp-0008RE-Ub for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:01:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:64165) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lRdHn-0002PY-Lw; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:01:41 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 86A0F80C1A; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3825C80B6D; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:01:36 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1617206496; bh=RGJ+2TuCL5VFV1jAHsNIag/7Xy6afwUwfcDl4ESad5M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=bL5khC06XcwngdHaI6wt/RlHbwH3TtDUOkMGlUuujlNSXbT/fJ/mLPEWFAw2k7Nol mkZDmnCAOzcd+NtnyC/xQ8tEJ4F4Kkq2byDj+/iNRDAbkuhWp8Zlrt8lBdVjtZl9S1 T/K0NczFCm6EY1q6JxqMl2aVqK6CIWYPSC2V5lH4QgXongK752qvXaSFh0fODWS3Vy KDWCHPPlbPAQ+BrnJdQD+BLRXHXXrVNzO8b+eT8OBw/xInT8poQGZBny1b/Hr41Mzl mdaOYMoAxLZnbZhG0GMR0UBbHHQ/EEUvyt9keYNCS1I/UI3QSrm7uvZfIvX1BNLcrX IRbTkS9mjZKfA== Original-Received: from alfajor (104-222-126-84.cpe.teksavvy.com [104.222.126.84]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1FA51201BE; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:01:35 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83zgyjj1yf.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:02:00 +0300") 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:267221 Archived-At: >> While all other things get discussed, could we perhaps have url.el be >> updated to locally bind read-process-output-max to a larger value, say >> 1mb? > > I don't think this would be TRT, because that variable affects all the > communications with all the subprocesses running at that time. BTW, what are the factors at play here? I understand there is a per-chunk overhead which pushes towards a higher value, but I'm not sure what factors are pushing towards smaller values. I can imagine that a 1MB buffer could be considered more than useful (hence wasteful) but I don't immediately see what would be the downside of setting it to 64kB instead of 4096B. The docstring seems to strongly recommend not to increase it, so I suspect there's a much stronger reason that "not be wasteful" in play. Stefan