From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Redisplay slower in Emacs 28 than Emacs 27 Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 05:36:42 +0200 Message-ID: <83v9da49it.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83czzl8qwu.fsf@gnu.org> <87sg8h78s8.fsf@gnus.org> <837dpt8lk5.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn3kjssr.fsf@gnus.org> <83im9c70vu.fsf@gnu.org> <87im9cfeej.fsf@gnus.org> <837dps6xyv.fsf@gnu.org> <87czzkdx57.fsf@gnus.org> <83v9dc5he3.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1o0chk9.fsf@gnus.org> <83tusw5g5o.fsf@gnu.org> <87360gaz7o.fsf@gnus.org> <875z5b9a84.fsf@gnus.org> <83360e6cip.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11678"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: ghe@sdf.org, larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 10 04:38:32 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 1knCmm-0002uL-39 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 04:38:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39902 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knCml-0007AQ-5H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 22:38:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35234) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knClE-0006Fl-9M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 22:36:56 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:33286) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knClD-0003GY-J3; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 22:36:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3200 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1knClD-0005FR-0Q; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 22:36:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:01:41 -0500) 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:260627 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, ghe@sdf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:01:41 -0500 > > > Btw, any particular reason for the cutoff of 16 bytes to switch to the > > "large chunk" branch? > > The reason is that I felt it looked good ;-) > Well, not only: the "large chunk" branch operates 8bytes at a time on > 64bit systems, so if we use it on a 15B string it will only consult the > first 8B which I thought wasn't good enough, whereas I felt that > ignoring the last 7B of a 23B string was acceptable. Then perhaps we should look for the optimal cutoff by benchmarking with different values?