[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Sep 2023 16:16:31 +0300 |
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 15:20:57 +0300
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>,
> 66020@debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>
>
> On 21/09/2023 05:36, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> make_process), although I had to use a value produced by
> >> make_uninit_string:
> >> apparently simply storing a char* field inside a managed structure creates
> >> problems for the GC and early segfaults. Anyway, the result was slightly
> > That should depend on*where* you put that field. Basically, it has to
> > come after:
> >
> > /* The thread a process is linked to, or nil for any thread. */
> > Lisp_Object thread;
> > /* After this point, there are no Lisp_Objects. */
> >
> > since all the words up to that point will be traced by the GC (and
> > assumed to be Lisp_Object fields).
>
> Ah, thanks. That calls for another try.
>
> ...still no improvement, though no statistically significant slowdown
> either this time.
Why did you expect a significant improvement? Allocating and freeing
the same-size buffer in quick succession has got to be optimally
handled by modern malloc implementations, so I wouldn't be surprised
by what you discover. There should be no OS calls, just reuse of a
buffer that was just recently free'd. The overhead exists, but is
probably very small, so it is lost in the noise.
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, (continued)
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/13
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/13
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/13
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/14
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/15
- bug#64735: 29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/16
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/19
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/20
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/20
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Stefan Monnier, 2023/09/20
- Message not available
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/21
- bug#66020: (bug#64735 spin-off): regarding the default for read-process-output-max, Dmitry Gutov, 2023/09/23