From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Redisplay slower in Emacs 28 than Emacs 27 Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 21:24:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87pn3lhcdd.fsf@gnus.org> <878sa9hbe2.fsf@gnus.org> <877dptfvae.fsf@gnus.org> <83czzl8qwu.fsf@gnu.org> <87sg8h78s8.fsf@gnus.org> Reply-To: Gregory Heytings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18863"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (NEB 394 2020-01-19) Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Third Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 07 22:38:48 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 1kmODX-0004pa-WC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 22:38:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50680 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmODX-0003TL-1T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:38:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50994) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmNzV-0004Nf-GP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:24:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:54497) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmNzR-0003EQ-9c; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:24:17 -0500 Original-Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:ghe@faeroes.freeshell.org [205.166.94.9]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 0B7LO7dQ023296 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Mon, 7 Dec 2020 21:24:07 GMT Original-Received: (from ghe@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 0B7LOhtC001044; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 21:24:43 GMT In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=ghe@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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: 2.1.23 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:260522 Archived-At: >>>> That being said, it seems to me that this slowdown is avoidable. Lars >>>> considers that the minor modification he made should not have changed >>>> anything. >>> >>> Would it be possible for you to run the benchmarks on the current >>> trunk, with and without that "!"? Because I just don't understand why >>> disabling the image cache would make Emacs slower. >> >> Sure, I'll do that. > > Could you also try with this patch: > > @@ -2351,7 +2356,7 @@ lookup_image (struct frame *f, Lisp_Object spec, int face_id) > > /* Look up SPEC in the hash table of the image cache. */ > hash = sxhash (spec); > - img = search_image_cache (f, spec, hash, foreground, background, true); > + img = search_image_cache (f, spec, hash, foreground, background, false); > if (img && img->load_failed_p) > { > free_image (f, img); > > It's a definite mistake on my part and may affect the caching of images, > although I can't see any way that it would slow anything down. > That doesn't fix the problem: 18.7s without this patch, 18.6s with this patch.