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 09:03:05 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83h7xsoi03.fsf@gnu.org> <834ktso4t2.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2r3n9q6.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="42267"; 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 15:03:51 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 1jMtK3-000Aup-0n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:03:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34124 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMtK2-00035C-0a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:03:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41010) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMtJQ-0002Wb-Q9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:03:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMtJP-0004W7-PI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:03:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:38265) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMtJN-0004UO-9b; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:03:09 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6FD7F100E37; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D387B10032F; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:03:06 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1586523786; bh=nxm2SJeJ666EfWx+knzx3pVweuRCfqjKQhAMPdAYBiw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=PC9SWL+WleQMukhwYYhTQCFZV/rc2xkZF21HiNcVdotIRn97aAw5/LjuAUGLMdC4E 2jf/5jDQKgPqYPIK5vnjY6y9uWLNuFI4RcPJwcvstwhN0+Kd96oO3MfH9h6JqE5BVt C6x1GXsF9wLT4h451a9PIP8c6cf0y8GlUDlwf3xYoW5KSgywg5K5PMbOUnO6GAEZip FyrWQfAFarGl4fyJvgLQ1xOvFPZkH7c6uN2gkHlW4LKbk8PoF6J9PK+IC7qQ3rNr4A LjvJFvmAJuu296J5smqUKhWTTCp0v2zLJIpyMNc2DFGAaC9brqWpmz1GcBYPLelzWq LWLxRU+pWP5uA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.241.114]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9237412068E; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:03:06 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83y2r3n9q6.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:19:45 +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:246749 Archived-At: >> No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that in the"idle >> GC case" the events are as follows: >> >> 1- 100%-N% of the GC runs while idle. >> 2- the user hits a key >> 3- the remaining N% of the GC runs. >> 4- the command runs >> >> whereas in the non-idle GC what happens is: >> >> 1- the user hits a key >> 2- the command starts >> 3- the GC gets run >> 4- the command continues and finiches >> >> To the user, the result is pretty much the same: in both cases Emacs >> took "time to run the command + time to GC" before responding. > > 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). Stefan