From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Garbage collector: is 800kb a good default? Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:34:02 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83h7xsoi03.fsf@gnu.org> <834ktso4t2.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2r3n9q6.fsf@gnu.org> <83mu7jmp8l.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="39133"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: dim1212k@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 10 16:34:59 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 1jMukE-000A3R-P4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:34:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35126 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMukD-0001o0-Qk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:34:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51354) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMujW-0000p3-HE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:34:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMujV-00086g-1r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:34:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:23522) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMujS-00084I-0R; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:34:11 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E35BA44FF19; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:34:08 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3486244FF13; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:34:03 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1586529243; bh=qyCWmUrSvJOBreqSqnPbaMf0q3ibJVsKITnA+rfa8hc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LL/MP2MOj5z+iS1FtsY+lci8+QrDfqkbW//BMbA318skuopAJ7uByKPLYHOJb8jxI 1cF7u4J0zY7FyeTHMmyO1WeYhF7OWdD2r95s4tEeVXukXgMY9NXzkHKFrjE3jxB+V1 E6vqXTNDo4HGyUx/4XsYZQHScwavIbWmJ14JTY2lGjXHzHS4/oonAibchrvmxQ+i4l AczARbPOTTCxU0T//FonMogjupBWdb7E356T7lM07CG/Uv+9uBX+39eMHlR7MnI8qg g7v5YY2P8kNGm8q6OTY/vwwBeQhNECND0QWR8HdBIBnKZNecMoQypFVdgkSZ4n/Ecv QbgtLDP7cy4sw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.241.114]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECCB012042E; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:34:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83mu7jmp8l.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:42:18 +0300") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 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:246758 Archived-At: >> > We are miscommunicating. My complaint was about the _response_ time, >> > which is the time that passes between me pressing a key and Emacs >> > reacting to that. In your description above it is the time between >> > "the user hits a key" and "the command starts". >> >> The user can't know when Emacs reacts to the key: in both cases there's >> no sign of life until point 4 finishes (that's assuming the command is >> something like self-insert-command where there's no user interaction >> *during* the command). > > Even for self-insert-command, I can easily know whether the command > started or not, because I have garbage-collection-messages turned on. Forget it, you don't seem to be able to understand my point, which is that idle-GC just moves the moment the GC happens. Without it, GC is pretty much guaranteed to slow down execution of the user's command. So if occasionally the user hits a key during the idle-GC, he just gets to experience the delay that he would otherwise *always* experience. > timers kick in. As result, I needed to tune several long-running idle > timers. I'd hate to see GC becoming one of them. The purpose of the idle-GC is not to *add* more background activity, but to move activity from active time to idle time. So if it works as intended it is not comparable to those other long-running idle timers. Stefan