From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:22:50 +0200 Message-ID: References: <85tzxazb8r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172928186 7417 80.91.229.12 (3 Mar 2007 13:23:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:23:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 03 14:22:59 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HNUCQ-0002oS-8s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:22:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HNUCP-00049K-O3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:22:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HNUCE-00048a-4h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:22:46 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HNUCC-00047M-NA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:22:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HNUCC-00047J-HM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:22:44 -0500 Original-Received: from cemetery.inter.net.il ([213.8.233.29]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HNUCB-0006cY-FF; Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:22:43 -0500 Original-Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [213.8.233.22]) by cemetery.inter.net.il (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370A0131BFA; Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:22:40 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-146-218.inter.net.il [80.230.146.218]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id GEV77824 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:22:38 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:14:08 -0500) X-detected-kernel: FreeBSD 6.x (1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:67254 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:14:08 -0500 > > My recollection is that they do annoy, but I will need to time things > to give more accurate information instead of hand-waving. > > I don't need _more accurate_ information, just confirmation. I would > like you to try turning off stealth fontification and see if you are > frequently annoyed by the need to fontify on the fly. I mostly use very fast (3 Ghz) machines nowadays, which are not easily forced into annoying delays. I could try to find a slower machine, but I need to know what is the clock speed we consider as ``reference'' for such investigations. That is, with what slow clock speeds we would still like Emacs to be reasonably responsive? On a 3-GHz machine, with jit-lock-stealth-time set to nil, I measure a consistent 5-10% increase in CPU time when paging up thru sufficiently long Texinfo documents wrt to an already fontified buffer (18%-25% percent the first time I page up, vs 10%-16% on subsequent attempts). By contrast, with the default setting of jit-lock-stealth-time I see only 1-3% of CPU being used while stealth fontification runs in the background, which is barely distinguishable from a totally idle machine.