From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On elisp running native Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2019 10:27:38 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83zhgeoh0k.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="98643"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andrea Corallo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 01 16:28:02 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ibR8j-000PVf-7H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2019 16:28:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52358 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ibR8h-0004kn-Fp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2019 10:27:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34936) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ibR8b-0004i4-8L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2019 10:27:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ibR8Z-0002lt-Mi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2019 10:27:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:24031) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ibR8X-0002kb-Mc; Sun, 01 Dec 2019 10:27:49 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7378B100506; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 10:27:48 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D758A1003C9; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 10:27:46 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1575214066; bh=/qm5+3YSq8wXslZVXgH1Yuy7nD8VBN6pWf7cafjwX2c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=UlUGrrv3xI/e/YaEdNPJGEi9hqTxX7gQAoi6eEP+3aJaS4J2jJzjnkP06QjXrkMfH DU0SXRoXYUDvYwk1kRUn2eN73BfEOYg6kVycbvyRcwhldRzuUW9yVOkshiglnjs3Un U90jkn6LqSL2MGrqAwcFxwiwR/jHbe7BGpZfVkVTlSL3HU/4x1UUHFeV9m/BWNRbMv Z40McgPMnBIAFMuCQDlOjjh3sy6DCYrBZnMZ1ZB0dZZOQJfGIRxdzFuc64QTAtzyBb 0/PdXkhzuSZW0seiMuJt0MLRiJ+ZWaEWST7EBwqyfoo+2rFUywg/BvBOR6wgrQd8+h TWjPZjylmsF8A== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.134.213]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B994D12113B; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 10:27:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Andrea Corallo's message of "Sun, 01 Dec 2019 10:34:06 +0000") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:242957 Archived-At: > I've discovered that my previous measure made not much sense because the > time spent into GC is much bigger during the byte-code runs. The GC time should never be discarded: it's real work that is being performed. > My explanation for that (you'll tell me if it makes sense) is that > having to load by hand all the .eln we start the test native compiled > tests with a bigger heap: That's possible, but a smaller heap also makes for a faster GC. Usually the time to perform one GC is largely proportional to the size of the heap, and we set the "time between GC" to be itself proportional to the size of the heap, so that overall the "time spent in GC" should be *more or less* independent from the heap size. Another possible source of difference is that the two codes don't behave the same w.r.t the amount of allocation they perform. In any case, to the extent that GC time is reduced, I think we should take it as a nice side-benefit. Stefan