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: Indentation and gc Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 10:29:51 +0000 Message-ID: <87jzziqpcw.fsf@localhost> References: <20230310110747.4hytasakomvdyf7i.ref@Ergus> <87ttys4dge.fsf@web.de> <83sfebyepp.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttyru4zt.fsf@web.de> <83fsabyb41.fsf@gnu.org> <87mt4jtpqf.fsf@web.de> <83ilf7wi48.fsf@gnu.org> <878rg3wh2f.fsf@localhost> <87a60jtg0z.fsf@web.de> <877cvmumjq.fsf@localhost> <83356aukkh.fsf@gnu.org> <87y1o2t45i.fsf@localhost> <83wn3mt33c.fsf@gnu.org> <873568d7ac.fsf@localhost> <83a60gu0ma.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg8gy81r.fsf@localhost> <837cvku0cg.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttyoy6vy.fsf@localhost> <833568twym.fsf@gnu.org> <87zg8fmrdq.fsf@localhost> <83ilf3scn1.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9580"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: arne_bab@web.de, spacibba@aol.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 15 11:28:34 2023 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 1pcOMz-0002De-Jq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 11:28:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pcOMX-0001sv-SR; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 06:28:05 -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 1pcOMU-0001sE-Gn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 06:28:02 -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 1pcOMR-0005Ao-5u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 06:28:01 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E997B2404CA for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 11:27:57 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1678876077; bh=ogtCrr0XB9ZO4ZBWr6GRd12Ko6B48TJkZtmt445XckM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=EBcedA+D3a0tmAdZiJa8UnqueEbumy4EVBwoARgCy/rNEHJH2Nv1RrgKo6xNj/eMh QwgeFb6dwnsGoGll1Y3mIznLiLs2Ymn/dkXu50puZt+98p9h6Sc/EYzXUmtaSAbg6k ZN7UOBeDA6pOkCiqrXNK8iHRSLXWvI6dTG9yAMZwxoXpGeHCIHmRpkSTyKdbJck/JE +gPaLKx56iKy0pk3/DGYZZGcACD0COlvzc8B0OG2sb1gqUKP/SQyN/SryHZnqzJoD3 f29GRLwH/PRlopZ7MiBxIABzbLa6D6hcRp89yi+7P7uZ+GipJ16HegXQ4FGKkzKtck BAUwSqC6567LQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Pc66P0kDPz9rxR; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 11:27:56 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <83ilf3scn1.fsf@gnu.org> 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_H2=-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:304489 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> At least, it can indirectly demonstrate the impact of GC threshold onto >> Emacs memory footprint. I guess it is what we worry about at the end. >> Or does the fragmentation cause other severe effects in addition to >> higher memory usage? > > _Real_ memory fragmentation, if it happens in Emacs, should cause the > memory footprint grow all the time without leveling out, and > malloc-info should then show that most of the memory is in small > chunks that cannot be spliced together. > > However, I have yet to see a platform where Emacs causes memory > fragmentation. Where the system malloc cannot be trusted, we use > gmalloc (and in the past used ralloc). Most modern platforms have > reliable malloc these days (the single known exception is MSDOS), so > this problem largely doesn't exist. In other words, we should not worry about gc-cons-threshold causing _real_ memory fragmentation. Just about increasing the memory footprint. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at