[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BASE_PURESIZE
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: BASE_PURESIZE |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:27:40 -0700 (PDT) |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > From: Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:37:19 +0200
> >
> > Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > For the record, the extra use of purecopy caused the pure_bytes_used
> > > value to go up by 52KB on 32-bit Windows, and by 92KB on 64-bit
> > > GNU/Linux. So it looks like the ratio is actually closer to 9/5 than
> > > to either the old 10/6 or the new 11/7. Or maybe I'm missing
> > > something.
> >
> > It all depends on the ratio of string data vs. lisp object pure storage.
>
> I made some measurements. The ratio of 11/7 seems to work pretty
> well, but there are two additional problems:
>
> . The default value of SYSTEM_PURESIZE_EXTRA is zero, and is not
> increased for GUI builds. This causes a --without-x build to waste
> some 100KB. If we want to handle this, the basic constant in
> BASE_PURESIZE can be as low as 1290000 and SYSTEM_PURESIZE_EXTRA
> should have its default at 140000 for GUI builds, zero otherwise.
>
> . The amount of pure storage used by load-history depends on the
> length of the filename of the directory where Emacs is dumped. In
> my case, I have 32 characters before the "emacs/lisp/" part, so I'm
> guessing that's the main reason the value of 1430000 was too small
> for me.
We have 2 more problems with load-history: although in loadup.el is
purecopied, something still seems to maintain references to the file
name strings, they are still present as non-pure strings in the dumped
image both as absolute file names and as the arguments passed to load
(see the simple patch I posted yesterday to dump strings). So we are
still wasting memory on those.
It would be great if load-history would be constructed in pure memory
from the beginning when dumping (instead of purecopying later).
Maybe someone that understands that code could do that...
> We could decide that we don't care too much about the --without-x
IMHO --without-x is completely unimportant.
- BASE_PURESIZE, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/10/23
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Andreas Schwab, 2009/10/23
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Andreas Schwab, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE,
Dan Nicolaescu <=
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/25
- defcustom standard-value (was: Re: BASE_PURESIZE), Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/29
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Chong Yidong, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/24
Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/23
Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Juanma Barranquero, 2009/10/23