[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#67536: 29.1; Calc mode's math-read-preprocess-string conses unnecess
From: |
Raffael Stocker |
Subject: |
bug#67536: 29.1; Calc mode's math-read-preprocess-string conses unnecessarily |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:28:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.10.8; emacs 29.1 |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> ...
>> 60,252,646 96% - org-ctrl-c-ctrl-c
>> 60,248,166 96% - org-table-calc-current-TBLFM
>> 60,216,431 96% - funcall-interactively
>> 60,205,119 96% - org-table-recalculate
>> 49,094,651 78% - org-table-eval-formula
>> 32,624,631 52% - calc-eval
>> 32,624,631 52% - calc-do-calc-eval
>> 32,620,487 52% - calc-do-calc-eval
>> 32,611,151 52% - math-read-exprs
>> 29,388,838 47% + math-read-preprocess-string
>> 2,343,257 3% + math-read-expr-list
>
> This is not memory usage, this is CPU usage measured by using
> memory-allocation functions as triggers to probe for the function that
> is being executed. So its evidence about consing and GC pressure is
> indirect at best.
>
> Can you instead look at the values of gcs-done and gc-elapsed before
> and after running the offending code, and show the delta of each one
> of them, with and without your proposed changes? Then we will see a
> much more direct evidence about the number of GC cycles and the time
> spent in GC, and could make the decision about how to improve the
> situation.
I defined the following advice:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(defun my-gc-status (orig-fun &rest args)
(let* ((done-bf gcs-done)
(elapsed-bf gc-elapsed)
(res (apply orig-fun args))
(done-af gcs-done)
(elapsed-af gc-elapsed))
(message "before:\n\tgcs-done: %d, gc-elapsed: %f" done-bf elapsed-bf)
(message "after:\n\tgcs-done: %d, difference: %d\n\tgc-elapsed: %f,
difference: %f"
done-af (- done-af done-bf)
elapsed-af (- elapsed-af elapsed-bf))
res))
(advice-add 'org-table-recalculate :around #'my-gc-status)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I had to put it around ‘org-table-recalculate’ instead of
‘math-read-preprocess-string’ as all the functions below
org-table-recalculate are called very often and have small individual
contributions. With the original ‘math-read-preprocess-string’ I get the
following typical result:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
before:
gcs-done: 854, gc-elapsed: 170.601313
after:
gcs-done: 859, difference: 5
gc-elapsed: 171.671042, difference: 1.069729
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I ran the command about twenty times and almost always got the
gcs-done difference of 5, with the occasional 4. The gc-elapsed is
fairly consistent at 1.07 for the 5 GC runs.
The modified version yields this typical output:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
before:
gcs-done: 906, gc-elapsed: 181.417292
after:
gcs-done: 908, difference: 2
gc-elapsed: 181.847972, difference: 0.430679
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Again, the gcs-done difference is quite stable at 2, with the occasional
3, the gc-elapsed is also fairly consistent at 0.43 for the 2 GC runs.
So we have about a factor of 2.5 between the elapsed GC times for the
two versions.
Regards,
Raffael