[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tooltips GC overhead

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Tooltips GC overhead
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 21:20:56 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 13:26:54 -0400
> > Without some kind of quantitative criterion, this sounds irrational to
> > me.  Would a 0.001% slow-down be acceptable?  How about 0.1%?  There
> > must exist some threshold below which any slow-down can be ignored,
> > and the question I'm asking is what is that threshold?
> For a functionality whose usefulness has not been proven, the threshold
> is 0%.

That's irrational.

> > That something else was a watchpoint put on the variable, followed by
> > semi-manual computation of the frequency distribution of functions
> > that caused the watchpoint to fire.  That's exactly what a profiler
> > would have done for me, if it were looking at that variable instead of
> > counting calls to malloc.
> I'd welcome a patch which uses such a "sampling watchpoint", since it
> would even speed up the code by removing the code that counts calls
> to malloc.

Sorry, your jokes are beyond me.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]