From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps? Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:20:26 +0000 Message-ID: <058b682b11240176288f@heytings.org> References: <83mtjwzwkb.fsf@gnu.org> <87r198ytog.fsf@gnus.org> <87zgnvyb5y.fsf@gnus.org> <87bl03j10s.fsf@gnus.org> <9D116A4B-622F-4C80-83E6-2CDD7ED9AD25@acm.org> <58bb8030d532070ed420@heytings.org> <838rv7mzn4.fsf@gnu.org> <58bb8030d5ec3a6bde9f@heytings.org> <837darmygd.fsf@gnu.org> <58bb8030d59733b52b8d@heytings.org> <83r18zkmd5.fsf@gnu.org> <835yq9ls7j.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13124"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: mattiase@acm.org, larsi@gnus.org, acm@muc.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 24 16:22:30 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 1nC1As-000382-KC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 16:22:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40760 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nC1Ar-00017w-4n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 10:22:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58108) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nC19w-0000EF-TP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 10:21:33 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:39750) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nC19I-0006xA-OS; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 10:21:22 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1643037627; bh=MoTQreWmuAQktWiV6qpRUBmD1gYV/9rI7yZkvY+5fGU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=JeEI3s4yqWuLXDmwaB9n+K7IhAlnsCA9vz1TdOlu9nOoI8RC9v+epxqU2B7yluijs ckqxGXUDn0cic/OL3TP8Nkw394d9oqi2S4xHUjb+6ShVNaSwUUHd3/HkwUU+mPMAXE kDN9smOGdHY7XNIToQmSgvG7Uj7Ev7eW201jfIDASDMNKq2lckPcHXQRoJ1vOZSZA2 ScPizrkE9rJ7doUzSTpja2vPHLLwwo2u+jhqRDtRgxhZzcdofpKpiGkc571cVSg2k5 oaxf2CFZtpIutwVk9XgR0ofby8KrIA3/i37V2VBu84fIuWoXKos5VbFv9nT6zU3xGB 9aPyCXwif3gSg== In-Reply-To: <835yq9ls7j.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.142.160.155; envelope-from=gregory@heytings.org; helo=heytings.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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: 2.1.29 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:285315 Archived-At: >>> and what does "execution time" stand for -- is that elapsed time, CPU >>> time, something else? >> >> The first time printed by "time", that is, the wall clock time. > > If you are measuring wallclock time, I don't see how the overall > slowdown is a reliable measure of any code performance. The test suite > includes quite a few tests that deliberately wait for some seconds for > various reasons, and those times aren't affected by the byte code or the > interpreter. > It is reliable, because the slowdown ratio doesn't change between -j1, -j4 and -j8. > > We need to measure CPU time. > The results are even worse (again 7922131bb2 vs 3b33a14380): make -j1 check: 153.7s (68.1s byte-compilation, 85.6s execution) vs 135.8s (58.1s byte-compilation, 77.7s execution) make -j4 check: 151.0s (67.5s byte-compilation, 83.5s execution) vs 132.3s (57.3s byte-compilation, 75.0s execution) make -j8 check: 149.2s (65.5s byte-compilation, 83.7s execution) vs 130.3s (55.8s byte-compilation, 74.5s execution) These numbers are the average of 20 runs in sequence, on an unloaded up-to-date Debian bookworm machine. In short: byte-compilation is ~17.5% slower, execution is ~11% slower. Nowhere near the "in the region of 1%" that was announced.