From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Moreton Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Memory leak due to bidi? Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:49:33 +0100 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312386601 10508 80.91.229.12 (3 Aug 2011 15:50:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:50:01 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 03 17:49:58 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qodhl-0004k2-83 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:49:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53009 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qodhk-0008Do-SN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:49:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38664) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qodhi-0008DD-1z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:49:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qodhg-0005F6-U9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:59305) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qodhg-0005Ew-Nk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:49:52 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qodhe-0004h6-UU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:49:50 +0200 Original-Received: from 193.34.186.16 ([193.34.186.16]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:49:50 +0200 Original-Received: from andrewjmoreton by 193.34.186.16 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:49:50 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 29 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.34.186.16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:gP4zNHn+PVHrk3Nu52qmjMoL6PQ= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:142820 Archived-At: On Wed 03 Aug 2011, Stefan Monnier wrote: >>> I've given up on using VC annotate in emacs after 10 minutes of bzr >>> thrashing my machine with zero output. > >> ??? "time bzr annotate src/character.h" shows this for me: > >> real 0m21.802s >> user 0m20.430s >> sys 0m0.650s > >> That's not long enough to be annoying, let alone 10 minutes of >> thrashing. What am I missing? > > Thrashing slows the process tremendously, so the 10 minutes are probably > due to thrashing. And thrashing is most likely due to Bzr using more > memory than Andy has on his machine. Sorry for being imprecise. I didn't mean thrashing in the sense of spending all of its time paging in and out of swap. I meant that I had one CPU pegged at 100% and emacs unresponsive while bzr contemplated busily. I gave up at that point. bzr may be fast enough in a POSIX world, but on Windows the native package is slow. Mercurial is also written mostly in Python and is blindingly fast by comparison, so it isn't Windows or python that's causing the lack of performance. AndyM