[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#21028: Performance regression in revision af1a69f4d17a482c359d98c00e
bug#21028: Performance regression in revision af1a69f4d17a482c359d98c00ef86fac835b5fac (Apr 2014).
Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:36 +0300
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
On 07/10/2015 07:55 PM, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:
The figures are very similar to the tests above: with that patch inserting 50
lines takes 3 seconds,
and without it it's instantaneous. Thus I think it's safe to say that this
particular patch is indeed
responsible for the performance regression. But maybe I'm missing something?
As of c40ea1328bb33abaec14f1fc92ac2349b5ee2715, I can't reproduce this issue,
with your fontset setup
from http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21028#17. Cursor motion and
are smooth, and CPU/memory usage looks normal.
My suggestions are:
1) Re-run your timed tests from
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21028#20 under /usr/bin/time,
not time (the latter is a simple shell builtin). /usr/bin/time also shows memory usage;
if "bad" (current)
instance consumes more memory than "good" (with reverted change) one, there may
be nasty GC issue.
2) 3 seconds is large enough to leave the traces in profiled runs. On
GNU/Linux, it may be worth trying
to run under perf, both "good" and "bad" cases, and comparing reports.
bug#21028: Performance regression in revision af1a69f4d17a482c359d98c00ef86fac835b5fac (Apr 2014)., Glenn Morris, 2015/07/10