From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Fix for slow process output processing (please test). Date: 07 Jan 2004 01:40:51 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87y8so7kjy.fsf@offby1.atm01.sea.blarg.net> <2914-Mon05Jan2004210950+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1073433564 25694 80.91.224.253 (6 Jan 2004 23:59:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:59:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: offby1@blarg.net, Eli Zaretskii , David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 07 00:59:20 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ae16W-00008P-00 for ; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:59:20 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ae16W-0003TC-00 for ; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:59:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ae1rt-0000ou-1w for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:48:17 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Ae1nf-0008Eb-7a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:43:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Ae1n5-00082W-Oa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:43:52 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.41.8] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1Ae1mY-0007jz-KX; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:42:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.41.46.236] (helo=pfepb.post.tele.dk) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ae0oi-0000Cc-5h; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:40:56 -0500 Original-Received: from kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk (0x503e2644.bynxx3.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.62.38.68]) by pfepb.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 1734F5EE1EE; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:40:48 +0100 (CET) Original-To: Jason Rumney In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19050 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19050 Jason Rumney writes: > I have tried running the code, but I'm not sure I understand this well > enough to interpret the results. With adaptive buffering on, we get > more 1024 byte blocks, but we get nothing for Time: 0 (which may be a > symptom of the noticeable delay that was reported?), and we also have > a Time: 9, which I think might mean it is taking longer overall. The > numbers are all in at least the high hundreds for both tests, so maybe > Windows is doing some buffering behind the scenes anyway. I just made a small adjustment to the adaptive read buffering algorithm, which I think will make it behave better on Windoze (without making it behave worse with Linux kernels). Please test the new version, and see if it behaves better than before. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk