[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file

From: Daniel Colascione
Subject: Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 02:47:03 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0

On 10/24/2016 01:41 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>,  address@hidden
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:24:26 +0200

We are not talking about 1 sec, we are talking about less than half
that time, potentially even 1/4th of a second.

That's still a lot.

$ time emacs --batch --eval t
0.027user 0.011system 0m0.048selapsed 79.66%CPU

Then I guess you will have to continue using unexec, and when that
alternative disappears, switch to some other editor.

I have lots of scripts that run using emacs -Q --batch; many are invoked frequently in other scripts. Making each take 250ms instead of 27ms to run will greatly increase the overall runtime of the high-level operations. I don't see a need to regress performance here, since a custom malloc will perform at least as well as the last glibc malloc that supported unexec (since it could in principle be a literal copy of that code), and we found the performance of that malloc acceptable. I care _much_ more about runtime performance than I do about allocation throughput once started.

reply via email to

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