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: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:52:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83h7xsoi03.fsf@gnu.org> <834ktso4t2.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2r3n9q6.fsf@gnu.org> <83mu7jmp8l.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="111033"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cc: dim1212k@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 10 17:52:59 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 1jMvxj-000SlV-1D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:52:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36030 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMvxi-0003PN-4a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:52:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60421) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMvx6-0002ye-6H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:52:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMvx4-0001hj-Tk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:52:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.20]:56956) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMvx4-0001e3-Ml; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:52:18 -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 03AFqCfQ007970 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:52:12 GMT Original-Received: (from akrl@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 03AFqCjc027054; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:52:12 GMT In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:34:02 -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:246775 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > So if occasionally the user hits a key during the idle-GC, he just gets > to experience the delay that he would otherwise *always* experience. > > The purpose of the idle-GC is not to *add* more background activity, but > to move activity from active time to idle time. So if it works as > intended it is not comparable to those other long-running idle timers. Following the discussion seems to me that the strategy you are discussing for the idle GC is exactly what I've implemented in the GCMH [1]. This into MELPA since about one year (I was without copyright assignment at the time) but I'd be happy to have it in ELPA or to have it reused somehow if it comes handy. Andrea [1] https://melpa.org/#/gcmh -- akrl@sdf.org