From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Regarding performance issues with the Emacs 25.1 Windows-build Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:22:09 +0200 Message-ID: <83shr0fwsu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1478680445.2214391.782069929.51F43E52@webmail.messagingengine.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478708877 9922 195.159.176.226 (9 Nov 2016 16:27:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:27:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: jostein@kjonigsen.net Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 09 17:27:53 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c4Vim-0008Sd-De for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:27:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41015 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4Vip-0001MH-DB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:27:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39049) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4Vdf-0006Rv-2p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:22:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4Vdb-0006F2-4z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:22:15 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56067) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4Vdb-0006Ex-1L; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:22:11 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3956 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c4Vda-0003fP-FU; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:22:10 -0500 In-reply-to: <1478680445.2214391.782069929.51F43E52@webmail.messagingengine.com> (message from Jostein =?utf-8?Q?Kj=C3=B8nigsen?= on Wed, 09 Nov 2016 09:34:05 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:209305 Archived-At: > From: Jostein Kjønigsen > Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 09:34:05 +0100 > > https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/598iot/on_windows_emacs_251_is_noticeably_slower_than/ > > The numbers here show Emacs 25.1 on Windows to be almost twice as slow > as 24.5! My measurement show only a very mild slowdown, about 20% to 30%. Nowhere near twice slower. The last timing in the benchmark posted to reddit is actually twice _faster_ with Emacs 25.1. FWIW, I don't feel any slowdown in day-to-day usage of Emacs, which is consistent with the above measurements. The only significant change in Emacs 25.1 on Windows is how we allocate memory, AFAIR. However, the posted benchmark doesn't allocate any significant memory, AFAICT. > How was the Windows-version built? Was it built by the same people, > using the same setup and the same toolchain? Or was something done > differently this time? The answer is probably that it was not built the same, but I very much doubt that the differences could explain a twofold performance hit. FWIW, my binaries were built by myself using the same compilation options (-O2 optimization), but I upgraded my compiler from GCC 4.8.1 to 5.3.0 between the two versions of Emacs. Again, I very much doubt that this could explain any significant performance differences. > Anyone have idea how we can go about this fixing this? The first step is to identify which part(s) are now slower.