From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: profiling emacs-23.1 vs emacs-22.3 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200908032029.n73KTi9h017528@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1249344114 6113 80.91.229.12 (4 Aug 2009 00:01:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 00:01:54 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 04 02:01:47 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MY7TO-0008CI-Mg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:01:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40886 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MY7TO-0002ah-5E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:01:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MY4By-0001tX-Br for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:31:34 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MY4Bt-0001lQ-JB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:31:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35045 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MY4Bt-0001kw-D8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:31:29 -0400 Original-Received: from sallyv2.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.120]:53266) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MY4Bs-0005Ya-RO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:31:29 -0400 Original-Received: from godzilla.ics.uci.edu (godzilla.ics.uci.edu [128.195.10.101]) by sallyv2.ics.uci.edu (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n73KTjcB010547 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: (from dann@localhost) by godzilla.ics.uci.edu (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id n73KTi9h017528; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Original-Lines: 84 X-ICS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ICS-MailScanner-ID: n73KTjcB010547 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.44, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@godzilla.ics.uci.edu X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:113622 Archived-At: I run a small test. Take src/config.h run C-x r t on it to insert a space in front of each line. Then build both emacs-23.1 and 22.3 with profiling enabled (-O2 -g -pg). Then run: emacs -Q -nw config.h M-: (indent-region (point-min)(point-max)) RET C-x C-c The 22.3 gprof results: Flat profile: Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name 41.29 7.13 7.13 4653244 0.00 0.00 forw_comment 16.10 9.91 2.78 32473 0.09 0.31 scan_sexps_forward 9.09 11.48 1.57 15132 0.10 0.15 re_search_2 5.62 12.45 0.97 17286 0.06 0.15 scan_lists 5.59 13.41 0.96 33462255 0.00 0.00 lookup_char_property 3.36 13.99 0.58 18478958 0.00 0.00 next_interval 2.14 14.37 0.37 129733 0.00 0.00 mark_object 1.80 14.68 0.31 137020 0.00 0.00 skip_chars 1.74 14.97 0.30 14459993 0.00 0.00 previous_interval 1.62 15.26 0.28 57446793 0.00 0.00 Fcdr 1.36 15.49 0.23 2156082 0.00 0.00 update_syntax_table 1.27 15.71 0.22 3315615 0.00 0.00 re_match_2_internal 1.19 15.91 0.20 23687203 0.00 0.00 Fassq 0.87 16.07 0.15 13478 0.01 0.06 Fprevious_single_property_change 0.75 16.20 0.13 33462255 0.00 0.00 textget 0.75 16.32 0.13 228439 0.00 0.00 Fbyte_code 0.52 16.41 0.09 1978403 0.00 0.00 update_interval 0.46 16.50 0.08 1101056 0.00 0.00 find_interval 0.29 16.55 0.05 3613429 0.00 0.00 buf_bytepos_to_charpos 0.26 16.59 0.04 10137050 0.00 0.00 Fcar 0.26 16.64 0.04 1154883 0.00 0.00 balance_an_interval 0.23 16.68 0.04 579275 0.00 0.00 unbind_to The 23.1 gprof results: Flat profile: Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name 29.60 7.03 7.03 406111658 0.00 0.00 char_table_ref 26.72 13.37 6.34 4653244 0.00 0.00 forw_comment 11.80 16.17 2.80 32121 0.00 0.00 scan_sexps_forward 5.98 17.59 1.42 23271 0.00 0.00 re_search_2 5.27 18.84 1.25 17289 0.00 0.00 scan_lists 4.13 19.82 0.98 33439981 0.00 0.00 lookup_char_property 1.94 20.28 0.46 18488739 0.00 0.00 next_interval 1.73 20.69 0.41 10038210 0.00 0.00 mark_object 1.26 20.99 0.30 2156799 0.00 0.00 update_syntax_table 1.20 21.27 0.29 sub_char_table_ref 1.10 21.53 0.26 14455134 0.00 0.00 previous_interval 0.88 21.74 0.21 57391428 0.00 0.00 Fcdr 0.88 21.95 0.21 3318263 0.00 0.00 re_match_2_internal 0.72 22.12 0.17 23671456 0.00 0.00 Fassq 0.67 22.28 0.16 196373 0.00 0.00 Fbyte_code 0.59 22.42 0.14 13478 0.00 0.00 Fprevious_single_property_change 0.51 22.54 0.12 38 0.00 0.02 Fgarbage_collect 0.38 22.63 0.09 33439981 0.00 0.00 textget 0.38 22.72 0.09 10115583 0.00 0.00 Fcar [snip] ----------------------------------------------- 0.05 0.22 612/32121 back_comment [28] 2.75 11.33 31509/32121 Fparse_partial_sexp [6] [5] 60.5 2.80 11.55 32121 scan_sexps_forward [5] 5.17 3.76 3796695/4653244 forw_comment [7] 1.62 0.00 93379139/406111658 char_table_ref [8] 0.15 0.86 1092890/2156799 update_syntax_table [11] 0.00 0.00 5096/10115583 Fcar [46] 0.00 0.00 6552/57391428 Fcdr [33] 0.00 0.00 147/952550 Fcons [105] It can be seen that 23.1 is quite a bit slower, and that it has a lot of extra calls to char_table_ref. Are those calls necessary?