From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joakim@verona.se Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 12:27:12 +0200 Message-ID: References: <8A8DA980-13A7-4F8B-9D07-391728C673C9@raeburn.org> <831su4dmn4.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9300x5n.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <734D2132-71FD-414D-B091-629189742DB4@raeburn.org> <83a8889ede.fsf@gnu.org> <144D5F87-D876-485D-BAB3-2AA93627272A@raeburn.org> <83inmq53xk.fsf@gnu.org> <96D35768-314C-43F5-BD5E-B12187759DCA@raeburn.org> <123104DD-447F-4CDB-B3A0-CED80E3AC8C9@raeburn.org> <20170403165736.GA2851@acm> <2497A2D5-FDB1-47FF-AED3-FD4ABE2FE144@raeburn.org> <83lgrhpalq.fsf@gnu.org> <0D99B4FE-FEEF-4565-87D6-E230A05DEF3C@raeburn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1491301698 2333 195.159.176.226 (4 Apr 2017 10:28:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 10:28:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: acm@muc.de, Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ken Raeburn Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 04 12:28:13 2017 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 1cvLgv-0007TZ-Tc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 12:28:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34835 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cvLh1-0005tg-PU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 06:28:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55561) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cvLgV-0005WM-4l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 06:27:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cvLgT-0001fi-Nm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 06:27:35 -0400 Original-Received: from gate.verona.se ([82.115.149.64]:47456) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cvLgO-0001e3-5z; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 06:27:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mta.verona.se (h-223-63.a149.priv.bahnhof.se [81.170.223.63]) by gate.verona.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C3E658005E; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:27:25 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta.verona.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798DF500C52; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 10:27:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at verona.se Original-Received: from mta.verona.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (exodia.verona.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t_qzm5YPjyd9; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:27:13 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from exodia.verona.se (www.verona.se [192.168.200.15]) by mta.verona.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743BF500694; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:27:12 +0200 (CEST) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mta.verona.se 743BF500694 Authentication-Results: mta.verona.se; dmarc=none header.from=verona.se Authentication-Results: mta.verona.se; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=joakim@verona.se In-Reply-To: <0D99B4FE-FEEF-4565-87D6-E230A05DEF3C@raeburn.org> (Ken Raeburn's message of "Tue, 4 Apr 2017 04:08:06 -0400") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 82.115.149.64 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:213635 Archived-At: Ken Raeburn writes: > On Apr 3, 2017, at 15:14, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >>> From: Ken Raeburn >>> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:35:16 -0400 >>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >>>=20 >>> Despite a few little speed-ups, I=E2=80=99ve got my doubts as to whethe= r it=E2=80=99s going to be fast enough. >>=20 >> I published my preliminary timings in these 2 messages: >>=20 >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-12/msg00923.html> h= ttp://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-12/msg00959.html > > Yes, I got some speedups, but I didn=E2=80=99t get it as fast as I was ho= ping. Some of my changes since your second message above might=E2=80=99ve = improved the numbers a little, but some (like loading the doc pointers at s= tartup, and I think =E2=80=9Cuniquify=E2=80=9D is going to need to be loade= d at startup too because it attaches advice to =E2=80=9Crename-buffer=E2=80= =9D which we can=E2=80=99t save properly) may slow it a little too. > > I was aiming for a startup time under a tenth of a second, and didn=E2=80= =99t get there, though there were a couple of additional things that could = be tried, with some effort. I=E2=80=99m not sure a startup time of nearly = a fifth of a second will feel for people. If they start Emacs once as part= of logging in, it probably won=E2=80=99t be an issue. If they start it ev= ery time they want to edit a file, it may be annoying to have the startup t= ime increased by even 0.15s. In my case I mostly use long-running sessions, so slow emacs startup isn't so bad for me. Most of the boot time seem to happen in 3rd party libs anyway. But on the other hand I think there is a valid use case for using Emacs for things like batch processing, web servers and such. And in those cases startup time matters. Again otoh, you might want to use emacsclient together with a long running emacs in those cases. But I'm not really using emacs for that sort of thing so one should listen to the people actually doing it primarily. > > Still, I suppose we can let people try it out, and find out what they thi= nk. Then we can decide if it=E2=80=99s good enough, if further speedup mea= sures are worth exploring, or if it=E2=80=99s a dead end. > > Ken --=20 Joakim Verona joakim@verona.se