From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Elisp native profiler Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:03:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: <5069CA0D.1080801@cs.ucla.edu> <1349123390.31932.1@faina> <506A8C86.5010102@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1349183054 15848 80.91.229.3 (2 Oct 2012 13:04:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:04:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Development To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 02 15:04:20 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TJ28o-0001NV-MX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:04:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49591 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TJ28j-0007OK-1l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:03:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55374) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TJ28Y-0007KH-3f for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:03:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TJ28S-0007zk-5o for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:03:46 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:49889) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TJ28S-0007z6-1w for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:03:40 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAG6Zu09FxLT4/2dsb2JhbABEDrQDgQiCFQEBBAFWIxALNBIUGA0kiBwFugmQRAOjM4FYgjBV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="200449831" Original-Received: from 69-196-180-248.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.180.248]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 02 Oct 2012 09:03:39 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 1C07F594CC; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:03:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <506A8C86.5010102@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Mon, 01 Oct 2012 23:41:10 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.182 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:153905 Archived-At: >> If it's common for 1ms to suffer from significant delays, >> then it's a good argument for setting the default higher. > I did a bit more investigation on this, on my host > (x86-64, AMD Phenom II X4 910e, Fedora 17). I instrumented > trunk bzr 110342 to count total timer overruns, and did a > CPU benchmark that took about 15.6 seconds when not profiling. What is an "overrun" exactly? Is it when the signal gets blocked because we're still in the signal handler? Or is it when the signal gets sent "significantly" later than requested, e.g. because of internal OS limits on timer granularity or something like that? Stefan