Re: Filtering out process filters

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 00:37:54 +0300
> Cc: arstoffel@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>
> 
> On 05/06/2025 12:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >>> In batch mode, quite a lot of display stuff is bypassed entirely, and
> >>> the only frame we have there is 10x10, much smaller than anything in
> >>> interactive sessions.  That should account for some differences
> >>> between batch and TTY cases.
> >>
> >> Depends on where the profile lands.
> > 
> > Sure, that's why I suggested 'perf'.  profiler.el is not accurate
> > enough, and cannot look inside C code.
> 
> It's as much profiler.c as it is profiler.el, so if someone wanted to 
> add more visibility into native code, that should be possible.

You are suggesting that we develop a built-in 'perf'?  Is that
reasonable?  Tools like 'perf' exist for a reason: so that others will
not need to reinvent the wheel.

> We probably did not, and my intuition also is that we'll hit diminishing 
> returns, if the scenario is improving a process as complex as 
> Eglot/jsonrpc (and not just basic char-counting routine).

If this is a concern, we should confirm or refute it ASAP, before we
invest too much effort in reingeneering subprocess support.