From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MPS: profiler Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:23:01 +0000 Message-ID: <874j9mnlre.fsf@localhost> References: <87v823xvq1.fsf@localhost> <86cyobmmhc.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0crxung.fsf@localhost> <87le2zxsqx.fsf@localhost> <8634p6n7jd.fsf@gnu.org> <87tthm3gq2.fsf@gmail.com> <87sex6ags5.fsf@localhost> <87msne3flr.fsf@gmail.com> <87frt63dvt.fsf@gmail.com> <86o77ulgk8.fsf@gnu.org> <868qyyl73z.fsf@gnu.org> <87v822uvjt.fsf@localhost> <877ceinn89.fsf@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="21164"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , eller.helmut@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gerd =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 21 21:22:13 2024 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 1sKjps-0005Ie-0G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sKjp8-0003W0-Ok; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:21:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sKjp5-0003Tu-Rv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:21:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sKjp3-0002NI-Oy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:21:23 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6B42240029 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 21:21:18 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1718997678; bh=DZJdI7GHQXJ1S+eYGxZhY08J4EcvZxoqHRzcMNEARdc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:From; b=Q/pFn5RT+orzN/cx2+TZSt2M2DzLeaLHlTQPc7GGtPFUfHf85WThxVXi35obb9Vr5 IZTj3KWrE4z62YfJ/TXg0e+bv95oQWL7WQ4iGyIe480V/xXbakyNGHCzlR7feeZx2W LsYEhhB3O3lVvlbW4K1RrOBfQB9P+mIsL416gBwijzDyXr8OZRyrUd/U0IZMGcsuBo zYmY3nRXKg30jbhsTnd/wr+dyipF0vD0XVyMvP3k2RHjL0rZaPpYGBUa8MC4cg8kEK qWxSn/26cnDfLagfvzL9WMk08QOqaxaYC3JZ6twDQOQMxCTj12E3xQRsKDlDgOJIRe +gpqLjexMBKPQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4W5Rzd31Wbz6tvh; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 21:21:17 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:320437 Archived-At: Gerd M=C3=B6llmann writes: >>> 19193 93% + command-execute >>> 1131 5% Automatic GC >> >> And this is without MPS: >> >> 21229 92% + command-execute >> 1734 7% Automatic GC >> >> Does it mean that MPS blocking is comparable to built-in GC? Or maybe >> the profiler output is no longer accurate? > > I haven't paid much attention to the profiler, because there were, let's > say more important things to get to work first, so anything regarding GC > the profiler spits out is with almost 100%V probablity obscure :-)., > > What do you mean by blocking? Igc ignores things like > inhibit_garbage_collection. My understanding is that MPS sometimes needs to stop Emacs, just like the traditional GC does. And I was hoping to see how frequently such stopping happens in practice compared to old GC. So, I fired the profiler and saw the above output. Now, the question is whether the profiler output wrt "Automatic GC" on scratch/igc branch represent the moments when Emacs is being properly frozen. --=20 Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at