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: elisp-benchmarks Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:13:50 -0500 Message-ID: References: <12E6EB56-966F-49F9-B6FC-13C2668F041B@acm.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="24101"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Emacs-Devel To: Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 10 17:18:42 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 1nIC9a-00065o-0X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 17:18:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46912 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nIC9Y-0006c2-DS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:18:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56936) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nIACu-0000Pw-3v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:18291) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nIACp-0000bA-Br for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:13:58 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 35CE14409BA; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:13:52 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2ACB744095D; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:13:51 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1644502431; bh=1Oj97wwlqZigBGPONnPEN07xfkwYfRdjf7NozOdKtik=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LYu/gaQ5ZXJ6gDDAYHsQammQFmV6WVaaPUwX+ZxWeIOU0kmhDmx3J0ixoVIzk+/Sq Wi70dSg4tqLWaVmhgbBebEOK3ecvaeAxUgxSPJiv/uQWEQOEXF5I0Mou6QASVVuo+T 3Drv9Qmqz1sqVGq3ianjkLPAHHWixQC2VDP5UnPwv3apsrWRbD6M6mOewXyz+AHtav HvNLsFYLiRk2LrW1tqCAJ6ABRC1THuRb/bmdwERCNse97OrFKyK61OoyHVSRAM80sc amwMdrY1OEQH/10W0i3L028NFyD0KzBwlpyl1Yeb2PemfM0FDqlFukuhdBZAi0tUT3 uQk7HF3PgD1BQ== Original-Received: from pastel (76-10-138-212.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.138.212]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 080871208CE; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:13:51 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <12E6EB56-966F-49F9-B6FC-13C2668F041B@acm.org> ("Mattias =?windows-1252?Q?Engdeg=E5rd=22's?= message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:12:18 +0100") 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 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:286139 Archived-At: > However I would like to caution against using the 'total' line of these > benchmarks and in fact suggest that it be removed entirely since it can be > very misleading: it is in effect tantamount to a completely arbitrary > weighting of the individual benchmarks. Definitely: I should have excised it when copy&pasting, sorry. Those benchmarks only make sense individually and you need to know what they do to interpret the results. > For the record, my own Relint benchmark (we all have our pets!) is at about > 1.03 from the same baseline which is notable because it exercises a wide > variety of operations, many of which weren't affected by any of the changes. I encourage you to contribute it to elisp-benchmarks. "All it takes" is a file which defines an `elb-relint-entry` function whose execution takes a reasonable amount of time (I'd say more than 1s but not too much more than 10s). Of course, with Relint there's the extra issue that it involves a package not included in Emacs. For the SMIE test, I used `sm-c-mode` by copying a snapshot of it into the `elisp-benchmark`, because the intention was not to measure the performance of `sm-c-mode` but the performance of SMIE. Stefan