From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 064701d 2/3: Increase the obarray size. Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:18:24 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20161230230257.13334.59525@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <20161230230257.E6F992201CD@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1483193978 2992 195.159.176.226 (31 Dec 2016 14:19:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:19:38 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Ken Raeburn To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 31 15:19:34 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cNKVP-0008G8-2P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:19:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44284 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cNKVU-0000Qb-0L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:19:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49595) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cNKUQ-0000P8-IH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:18:31 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cNKUN-0004R0-FJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:18:30 -0500 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:51618) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cNKUN-0004Ql-9n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:18:27 -0500 Original-Received: from fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id uBVEIOlK029242; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:18:25 -0500 Original-Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 89CA7AE0F8; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:18:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20161230230257.E6F992201CD@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> (Ken Raeburn's message of "Fri, 30 Dec 2016 23:02:57 +0000 (UTC)") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV5905=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <5905> : inlines <5614> : streams <1727049> : uri <2350242> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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:211028 Archived-At: > In a typical GNU/Linux/X11 build, we wind up with over 15k symbols by > the time we've started. The old obarray size ensured an average chain > length of 10 or more. > * src/lread.c (OBARRAY_SIZE): Increase to 15121. Have you checked the performance impact? E.g. compared to a length of 8K? I do believe 15K is better than 1.5K, but an average length of 1 sound like the hash array might end up being larger than the optimal size. Stefan