From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Garbage collector: is 800kb a good default? Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 14:48:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="77980"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cc: Dmitrii Korobeinikov , emacs-devel To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 09 16:49:09 2020 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 1jMYUO-000KC2-0l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 16:49:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51016 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMYUN-0002wx-2j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 10:49:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42664) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMYTs-0002Aq-G2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 10:48:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMYTr-0008LO-Fe for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 10:48:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.20]:54215) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMYTr-0008Kk-8R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 10:48:35 -0400 Original-Received: from sdf.org (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 039EmWEq012274 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:48:32 GMT Original-Received: (from akrl@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 039EmVYT019946; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:48:31 GMT In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu, 09 Apr 2020 09:47:38 -0400") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 205.166.94.20 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:246717 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> Of course, raising the threshold significantly higher on its own is >> not a very good idea. But if paired with an idle timer like suggested >> here [2], then it all starts looking like a decent combination: > > I agree that it's worth investigating improvements based on dynamically > changing the GC threshold. This what I run when I'm on X86 machines or SoC where for various reasons memory latency is a pain. In this conditions I find it helps considerably for me. https://gitlab.com/koral/gcmh/-/blob/master/gcmh.el On normal conditions I often don't bother. Andrea -- akrl@sdf.org