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: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file (was: When should ralloc.c be used?) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:34:38 +0300 Message-ID: <83shrnm0k1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87twe6sx2g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <8360ojpndr.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477244139 28386 195.159.176.226 (23 Oct 2016 17:35:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:35:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 23 19:35:35 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 1byMg9-0005WM-6S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:35:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41875 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byMgB-0006ug-5W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:35:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47335) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byMfW-0006uP-TF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:34:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byMfS-0005RS-CR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:34:46 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:36837) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byMfS-0005RO-9U; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:34:42 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3234 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1byMfR-0004uf-J9; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:34:42 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:44:33 -0400) 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:208634 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:44:33 -0400 > > >> If someone wants to do that, great. I'd rather spend my own limited > >> cycles on fixing the main problem, which is unexec. > > I thought we agreed to get rid of unexec by loading a single .elc file > > at startup of Emacs, and remove the distinction between temacs and > > Emacs altogether. Is that what you'd like to work on? > > FWIW, I just did a quick experiment with the patch below which dumps the > state of Emacs's obarray after loadup.el into a big "dumped.elc" file. > Not sure if such an approach could work, but in any case I expect that > a working .elc file should likely be of comparable size. > > The result is a .elc file of 3.3MB which seems reasonable. > When I try to load it, tho, I get: > > % time src/emacs -Q --batch -l dumped.elc -f kill-emacs > src/emacs -Q --batch -l dumped.elc -f kill-emacs 3.50s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 3.506 total > % > > And that's with a warm cache on "i3-4170 CPU @ 3.70GHz" (my first, and > still only, CPU that goes beyond 3GHz). > > So even if there might be ways to speed this up, it doesn't look > too promising. That sounds strangely long, as I got less than 2 sec with all the preloaded *.elc files concatenated to a single file, and that's before I made pure-copy a no-op. Another report was that "loadup" with pure-copy short-circuited took less than 0.5 sec. See https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-01/msg01049.html Was your Emacs an optimized build?