Re: A whole lotta auto-saving going

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: larsi@gnus.org,  aaronjensen@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:00:04 -0500
> 
> > I think sitting for the entire period is undesirable, since receiving
> > output from a process might require redisplay.
> > In that case, waiting could make Emacs seem unresponsive or busy,
> > whereas it really isn't.
> 
> But the `do_display` argument indicates that if redisplay is needed it
> can happen without returning from `wait_reading_process_output`.

Do we get to where that causes redisplay in this case?

> > I think a simple solution to this would be to check the time passed
> > after sit_for returns, and if some of the wait time is left, not call
> > auto-save.  This would mimic what happened before the offending
> > changeset.
> 
> The patch below implements that option.

Thanks.

I see you look at the number of bytes read, but what about the case
that a process exited?

> There's one other call to `sit_for` which can be affected:
> 
>         tem0 = sit_for (Vecho_keystrokes, 1, 1);
>         unbind_to (count, Qnil);
>         if (EQ (tem0, Qt)
>             && ! CONSP (Vunread_command_events))
>           echo_now ();
> 
> I believe it's an improvement there as well.

Why do you believe that?  It's a different use case, and I don't think
we saw any adverse effects there from the removal of the buffer-switch
"event".  Are there any adverse effects?