GNU bug report logs - #61489
[PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 61489 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 61489 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 23:00:06 +0300

Originally discovered by Tyler Dodge in his article "Significant Garbage
Collection Improvement For Emacs".

While testing this change on Archlinux system with Intel i5-7200U CPU,
average time of garbage collection gets reduced by ≈25%. While
monitoring PSS of emacs with and without customizations loaded before
and after the patch, no statistically significant differences were
discovered. So overall, this change is a win.

* src/alloc.c (BLOCK_ALIGN): increase from 2¹⁰ to 2¹⁵
---
 src/alloc.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/alloc.c b/src/alloc.c
index c25e81d1dde..d278b01343d 100644
--- a/src/alloc.c
+++ b/src/alloc.c
@@ -1083,7 +1083,7 @@ lisp_free (void *block)
    BLOCK_BYTES and guarantees they are aligned on a BLOCK_ALIGN boundary.  */
 
 /* Byte alignment of storage blocks.  */
-#define BLOCK_ALIGN (1 << 10)
+#define BLOCK_ALIGN (1 << 15)
 verify (POWER_OF_2 (BLOCK_ALIGN));
 
 /* Use aligned_alloc if it or a simple substitute is available.
-- 
2.39.0

Message #8 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: Acknowledgement ([PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN
 from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 23:05:21 +0300

Idk if it's a feature (bugtracker is an odd way of managing the patches in
general, so who knows), but for the safe case I'll mention that debbugs created
for the cover-letter email a separate page bug#61490

Message #11 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ihor Radchenko <yantar92 <at> posteo.net>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from
 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 22:30:27 +0000

Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru> writes:

> While testing this change on Archlinux system with Intel i5-7200U CPU,
> average time of garbage collection gets reduced by ≈25%. While
> monitoring PSS of emacs with and without customizations loaded before
> and after the patch, no statistically significant differences were
> discovered. So overall, this change is a win.

In GNU Emacs 30.0.50 (build 9, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version
 3.24.35, cairo version 1.17.6) of 2023-02-14 built on localhost
Repository revision: 51320630cfbc452326e1d0d7b8a313f682129ec1
Repository branch: kk/bug-61489-increase-block
Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12101006
System Description: Gentoo Linux

Linux localhost 6.1.9-gentoo-x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Feb 13
14:05:49 +03 2023 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10510U CPU @ 1.80GHz
GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

Running the benchmark from the blog post:
- without the patch: 0.600450
- with the patch:    0.321723 (~50% improvement)

I also changed gc-cons-threshold to 250,000,000 and gc-cons-percentage
to 0.0001. The results are nearly the same.

Running
(1) gc-cons-threshold <- most-positive-fixnum;
(2) org-element-parse-buffer on huge Org file (22Mb)
(3) garbage-collect:
- with the patch:    1.2494823932647705
- without the patch: 1.1721010208129883 (~6% improvement)

Memory consumption nearly unchanged.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>

Message #14 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: Acknowledgement ([PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from
 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 05:29:24 +0200

> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 23:05:21 +0300
> 
> Idk if it's a feature (bugtracker is an odd way of managing the patches in
> general, so who knows), but for the safe case I'll mention that debbugs created
> for the cover-letter email a separate page bug#61490

You should never change the Subject of a bug report, unless you want a
new bug created by the tracker.

Message #17 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: Acknowledgement ([PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN
 from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:45:54 +0300

On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 05:29 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
> > Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 23:05:21 +0300
> > 
> > Idk if it's a feature (bugtracker is an odd way of managing the patches in
> > general, so who knows), but for the safe case I'll mention that debbugs
> > created
> > for the cover-letter email a separate page bug#61490
> 
> You should never change the Subject of a bug report, unless you want a
> new bug created by the tracker.

Thank you. But, how one sends a patch series then?

Message #20 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: Acknowledgement ([PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN
 from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:56:19 +0300

On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 09:45 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 05:29 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
> > > Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 23:05:21 +0300
> > > 
> > > Idk if it's a feature (bugtracker is an odd way of managing the patches in
> > > general, so who knows), but for the safe case I'll mention that debbugs
> > > created
> > > for the cover-letter email a separate page bug#61490
> > 
> > You should never change the Subject of a bug report, unless you want a
> > new bug created by the tracker.
> 
> Thank you. But, how one sends a patch series then?

FTR, I vaguely remember this problem has been discussed, probably on the mailing list. I recall someone said this shouldn't happen while sending a series with `git-send-email`, then someone (me or not) mentioned that with debuggs `git-send-email` exactly result like this; and after that I don't remember anything. It probably has been discussed as part of the thread about git forges, so it's possible the discussion just moved on then.

Message #23 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: Acknowledgement ([PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN
 from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:20:58 +0100

>>>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:56:19 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:

    Konstantin> On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 09:45 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
    >> On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 05:29 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
    >> > > From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
    >> > > Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 23:05:21 +0300
    >> > > 
    >> > > Idk if it's a feature (bugtracker is an odd way of managing the patches in
    >> > > general, so who knows), but for the safe case I'll mention that debbugs
    >> > > created
    >> > > for the cover-letter email a separate page bug#61490
    >> > 
    >> > You should never change the Subject of a bug report, unless you want a
    >> > new bug created by the tracker.
    >> 
    >> Thank you. But, how one sends a patch series then?

You send your cover letter to bug-gnu-emacs, which creates a bug
<bugnumber>. You then send the rest of the series to
<bugnumber>@debbugs.gnu.org (for extra credit, you put the bug number
in the commit message before doing this).

Robert
-- 

Message #26 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: Acknowledgement ([PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN
 from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:22:49 +0300

On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 09:20 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:56:19 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
> > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
> 
>     Konstantin> On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 09:45 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
>     >> On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 05:29 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>     >> > > From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
>     >> > > Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 23:05:21 +0300
>     >> > > 
>     >> > > Idk if it's a feature (bugtracker is an odd way of managing the
> patches in
>     >> > > general, so who knows), but for the safe case I'll mention that
> debbugs
>     >> > > created
>     >> > > for the cover-letter email a separate page bug#61490
>     >> > 
>     >> > You should never change the Subject of a bug report, unless you want
> a
>     >> > new bug created by the tracker.
>     >> 
>     >> Thank you. But, how one sends a patch series then?
> 
> You send your cover letter to bug-gnu-emacs, which creates a bug
> <bugnumber>. You then send the rest of the series to
> <bugnumber>@debbugs.gnu.org (for extra credit, you put the bug number
> in the commit message before doing this).

But this won't work, because every patch has a different title. So if debbugs
creates a new report per title, this means the problem will still persist.

Message #29 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: Acknowledgement ([PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN
 from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:29:17 +0300

On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 11:22 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 09:20 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:56:19 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
> > > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
> > 
> >     Konstantin> On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 09:45 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
> > wrote:
> >     >> On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 05:29 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >     >> > > From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
> >     >> > > Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 23:05:21 +0300
> >     >> > > 
> >     >> > > Idk if it's a feature (bugtracker is an odd way of managing the
> > patches in
> >     >> > > general, so who knows), but for the safe case I'll mention that
> > debbugs
> >     >> > > created
> >     >> > > for the cover-letter email a separate page bug#61490
> >     >> > 
> >     >> > You should never change the Subject of a bug report, unless you
> > want
> > a
> >     >> > new bug created by the tracker.
> >     >> 
> >     >> Thank you. But, how one sends a patch series then?
> > 
> > You send your cover letter to bug-gnu-emacs, which creates a bug
> > <bugnumber>. You then send the rest of the series to
> > <bugnumber>@debbugs.gnu.org (for extra credit, you put the bug number
> > in the commit message before doing this).
> 
> But this won't work, because every patch has a different title. So if debbugs
> creates a new report per title, this means the problem will still persist.

Oh, sorry, I'm being stupid. Right, there's no report will be created because I send the series to the existing report. Sorry.

Message #32 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, hi-angel <at> yandex.ru
Subject: Re: bug#61489: Acknowledgement ([PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN
 from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 15:26:08 +0200

> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:20:58 +0100
> 
> >>>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:56:19 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
> 
>     >> Thank you. But, how one sends a patch series then?
> 
> You send your cover letter to bug-gnu-emacs, which creates a bug
> <bugnumber>. You then send the rest of the series to
> <bugnumber>@debbugs.gnu.org (for extra credit, you put the bug number
> in the commit message before doing this).

Alternatively, send all of the patches in a single email message as
attachments, then you don't need to wait for the bug tracker to
allocate a number.  Whether this is convenient enough for you depends
on your workflows vis-a-vis Git and "git format-patch", and also what
is your MUA and how it is configured.

Message #35 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>, 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, hi-angel <at> yandex.ru
Subject: Open a bug report with git-send-email (was: bug#61489:
 Acknowledgement ([PATCH 1/1] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 2¹⁰to 2¹⁵))
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 08:03:56 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:20:58 +0100
>> 
>> >>>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:56:19 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
>> <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
>> 
>>     >> Thank you. But, how one sends a patch series then?
>> 
>> You send your cover letter to bug-gnu-emacs, which creates a bug
>> <bugnumber>. You then send the rest of the series to
>> <bugnumber>@debbugs.gnu.org (for extra credit, you put the bug number
>> in the commit message before doing this).
>
> Alternatively, send all of the patches in a single email message as
> attachments, then you don't need to wait for the bug tracker to
> allocate a number.  Whether this is convenient enough for you depends
> on your workflows vis-a-vis Git and "git format-patch", and also what
> is your MUA and how it is configured.

See e.g. bug#48592 for an example of Robert's procedure (modulo amending
the commit messages with the bug number):

https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=48592
https://yhetil.org/emacs-bugs/20210522202519.32549-1-jonas <at> bernoul.li/

GUIX documents this in more detail:

https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Sending-a-Patch-Series.html#Multiple-Patches-1

IIUC we have bug#15361 open to make debbugs understand this kind of
submission without this workaround.

Message #38 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 18:07:55 +0300

Originally discovered by Tyler Dodge in his article "Significant Garbage
Collection Improvement For Emacs".

While testing this change on Archlinux system with Intel i5-7200U CPU,
average time of garbage collection gets reduced by ≈25%. Other users
report improvements up to 50%. While monitoring PSS of emacs with and
without customizations loaded before and after the patch, no
statistically significant differences were discovered. So overall, this
change is a win.

* src/alloc.c (BLOCK_ALIGN): increase from 1024 to 32768
---

v2: 
    * Richard Stallman: don't use non-ASCII in the description
    * Me: mention the report by Ihor Radchenko where performance
      improved by 50%

 src/alloc.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/alloc.c b/src/alloc.c
index c25e81d1dde..d278b01343d 100644
--- a/src/alloc.c
+++ b/src/alloc.c
@@ -1083,7 +1083,7 @@ lisp_free (void *block)
    BLOCK_BYTES and guarantees they are aligned on a BLOCK_ALIGN boundary.  */
 
 /* Byte alignment of storage blocks.  */
-#define BLOCK_ALIGN (1 << 10)
+#define BLOCK_ALIGN (1 << 15)
 verify (POWER_OF_2 (BLOCK_ALIGN));
 
 /* Use aligned_alloc if it or a simple substitute is available.
-- 
2.39.2

Message #41 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:30:00 +0300

So, it's been a week since version 2 was posted and 10-11 days since I started
using the change locally. Everything has been nice and dandy, and in absence of
further comments, I wonder if somebody with write permissions could merge this
patch?

P.S.: since there's a duplicate issues (one for the cover letter of the patch
and another for the patch itself, I decided to add the second issue to CC).

Message #44 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 16:49:04 +0100

>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:30:00 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:

    Konstantin> So, it's been a week since version 2 was posted and 10-11 days since I started
    Konstantin> using the change locally. Everything has been nice and dandy, and in absence of
    Konstantin> further comments, I wonder if somebody with write permissions could merge this
    Konstantin> patch?

Iʼve had no issues with it. Eli? Does this require 'Copyright-paperwork-exempt: yes'?

    Konstantin> P.S.: since there's a duplicate issues (one for the cover letter of the patch
    Konstantin> and another for the patch itself, I decided to add the second issue to CC).

We can close 61489 or merge it with 61490. Probably the latter is best.

Robert
-- 

Message #47 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:53:02 +0300

On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:49 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:30:00 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
> > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
> 
>     Konstantin> So, it's been a week since version 2 was posted and 10-11 days
> since I started
>     Konstantin> using the change locally. Everything has been nice and dandy,
> and in absence of
>     Konstantin> further comments, I wonder if somebody with write permissions
> could merge this
>     Konstantin> patch?
> 
> Iʼve had no issues with it. Eli? Does this require 'Copyright-paperwork-
> exempt: yes'?

No, I have a copyright assignment with GNU for Emacs, it's just that I don't write permissions :)

Message #50 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 16:57:10 +0100

>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:53:02 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:

    Konstantin> On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:49 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
    >> > > > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:30:00 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
    >> > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
    >> 
    >>     Konstantin> So, it's been a week since version 2 was posted and 10-11 days
    >> since I started
    >>     Konstantin> using the change locally. Everything has been nice and dandy,
    >> and in absence of
    >>     Konstantin> further comments, I wonder if somebody with write permissions
    >> could merge this
    >>     Konstantin> patch?
    >> 
    >> Iʼve had no issues with it. Eli? Does this require 'Copyright-paperwork-
    >> exempt: yes'?

    Konstantin> No, I have a copyright assignment with GNU for Emacs, it's just that I don't write permissions :)

OK. I canʼt find any commits in your name using 'hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>'
as the email address, is it under a different one?

Thanks

Robert
-- 

Message #53 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:05:22 +0300

On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:57 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:53:02 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
> > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
> 
>     Konstantin> On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:49 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
>     >> > > > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:30:00 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
>     >> > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
>     >> 
>     >>     Konstantin> So, it's been a week since version 2 was posted and 10-
> 11 days
>     >> since I started
>     >>     Konstantin> using the change locally. Everything has been nice and
> dandy,
>     >> and in absence of
>     >>     Konstantin> further comments, I wonder if somebody with write
> permissions
>     >> could merge this
>     >>     Konstantin> patch?
>     >> 
>     >> Iʼve had no issues with it. Eli? Does this require 'Copyright-
> paperwork-
>     >> exempt: yes'?
> 
>     Konstantin> No, I have a copyright assignment with GNU for Emacs, it's
> just that I don't write permissions :)
> 
> OK. I canʼt find any commits in your name using 'hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>'
> as the email address, is it under a different one?

Well, the "Hi-Angel" is my old nickname, so I typically upcase it, including
inside the email address. So my email inside git config is "email =
Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru", and similarly to find my commits with `git-log` you gotta
use a:

	git log --author="Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru"

Message #56 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 17:34:12 +0100

>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:05:22 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:

    Konstantin> On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:57 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
    >> > > > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:53:02 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
    >> > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
    >> 
    >>     Konstantin> On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:49 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
    >>     >> > > > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:30:00 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
    >>     >> > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
    >>     >> 
    >>     >>     Konstantin> So, it's been a week since version 2 was posted and 10-
    >> 11 days
    >>     >> since I started
    >>     >>     Konstantin> using the change locally. Everything has been nice and
    >> dandy,
    >>     >> and in absence of
    >>     >>     Konstantin> further comments, I wonder if somebody with write
    >> permissions
    >>     >> could merge this
    >>     >>     Konstantin> patch?
    >>     >> 
    >>     >> Iʼve had no issues with it. Eli? Does this require 'Copyright-
    >> paperwork-
    >>     >> exempt: yes'?
    >> 
    >>     Konstantin> No, I have a copyright assignment with GNU for Emacs, it's
    >> just that I don't write permissions :)
    >> 
    >> OK. I canʼt find any commits in your name using 'hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>'
    >> as the email address, is it under a different one?

    Konstantin> Well, the "Hi-Angel" is my old nickname, so I typically upcase it, including
    Konstantin> inside the email address. So my email inside git config is "email =
    Konstantin> Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru", and similarly to find my commits with `git-log` you gotta
    Konstantin> use a:

    Konstantin> 	git log --author="Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru"

TIL that I havenʼt turned on enough case-insensitivity in my git
aliases :-)

Robert
-- 

Message #59 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, hi-angel <at> yandex.ru
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:40:35 +0200

> Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 16:49:04 +0100
> 
> >>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:30:00 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
> 
>     Konstantin> So, it's been a week since version 2 was posted and 10-11 days since I started
>     Konstantin> using the change locally. Everything has been nice and dandy, and in absence of
>     Konstantin> further comments, I wonder if somebody with write permissions could merge this
>     Konstantin> patch?
> 
> Iʼve had no issues with it. Eli? Does this require 'Copyright-paperwork-exempt: yes'?

Yes, it does.

Message #62 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: rpluim <at> gmail.com, 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61490: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to
 32768
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:41:34 +0200

> Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:53:02 +0300
> 
> On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:49 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:30:00 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
> > > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
> > 
> >     Konstantin> So, it's been a week since version 2 was posted and 10-11 days
> > since I started
> >     Konstantin> using the change locally. Everything has been nice and dandy,
> > and in absence of
> >     Konstantin> further comments, I wonder if somebody with write permissions
> > could merge this
> >     Konstantin> patch?
> > 
> > Iʼve had no issues with it. Eli? Does this require 'Copyright-paperwork-
> > exempt: yes'?
> 
> No, I have a copyright assignment with GNU for Emacs, it's just that I don't write permissions :)

Sorry, you are right.  Ignore my previous message where I said the
Copyright-paperwork-exempt thingy is necessary.

Message #67 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: bug#61489: bug#61490: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase
 BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:50:43 +0100

>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:41:34 +0200, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> said:

    >> Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
    >> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
    >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:53:02 +0300
    >> 
    >> On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:49 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
    >> > > > > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:30:00 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
    >> > > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
    >> > 
    >> >     Konstantin> So, it's been a week since version 2 was posted and 10-11 days
    >> > since I started
    >> >     Konstantin> using the change locally. Everything has been nice and dandy,
    >> > and in absence of
    >> >     Konstantin> further comments, I wonder if somebody with write permissions
    >> > could merge this
    >> >     Konstantin> patch?
    >> > 
    >> > Iʼve had no issues with it. Eli? Does this require 'Copyright-paperwork-
    >> > exempt: yes'?
    >> 
    >> No, I have a copyright assignment with GNU for Emacs, it's just that I don't write permissions :)

    Eli> Sorry, you are right.  Ignore my previous message where I said the
    Eli> Copyright-paperwork-exempt thingy is necessary.

OK, Iʼve merged the two bugs. I can push whenever you deem itʼs ready.

Robert
-- 

Message #70 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: bug#61490: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase
 BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:30:10 +0300

On Fri, 2023-02-24 at 11:50 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:41:34 +0200, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> > > > > > said:
> 
>     >> Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>     >> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
>     >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:53:02 +0300
>     >> 
>     >> On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:49 +0100, Robert Pluim wrote:
>     >> > > > > > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:30:00 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov
>     >> > > > > > > <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru> said:
>     >> > 
>     >> >     Konstantin> So, it's been a week since version 2 was posted and
> 10-11 days
>     >> > since I started
>     >> >     Konstantin> using the change locally. Everything has been nice
> and dandy,
>     >> > and in absence of
>     >> >     Konstantin> further comments, I wonder if somebody with write
> permissions
>     >> > could merge this
>     >> >     Konstantin> patch?
>     >> > 
>     >> > Iʼve had no issues with it. Eli? Does this require 'Copyright-
> paperwork-
>     >> > exempt: yes'?
>     >> 
>     >> No, I have a copyright assignment with GNU for Emacs, it's just that I
> don't write permissions :)
> 
>     Eli> Sorry, you are right.  Ignore my previous message where I said the
>     Eli> Copyright-paperwork-exempt thingy is necessary.
> 
> OK, Iʼve merged the two bugs. I can push whenever you deem itʼs ready.

There was no opposition in any of the answers, so I presume it is ready…?

Message #73 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: 61490 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: bug#61490: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 13:44:32 +0300

Ping

Message #78 received at 61489-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 61489-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:26:58 +0200

> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 18:07:55 +0300
> 
> Originally discovered by Tyler Dodge in his article "Significant Garbage
> Collection Improvement For Emacs".
> 
> While testing this change on Archlinux system with Intel i5-7200U CPU,
> average time of garbage collection gets reduced by ≈25%. Other users
> report improvements up to 50%. While monitoring PSS of emacs with and
> without customizations loaded before and after the patch, no
> statistically significant differences were discovered. So overall, this
> change is a win.
> 
> * src/alloc.c (BLOCK_ALIGN): increase from 1024 to 32768

Thanks, installed on the master branch, and closing the bug.

Message #86 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Hi-Angel <at> yandex.ru
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 17:00:58 +0200

> Cc: 61489-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:26:58 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> 
> > * src/alloc.c (BLOCK_ALIGN): increase from 1024 to 32768
> 
> Thanks, installed on the master branch, and closing the bug.

Note: this change breaks the unexec build, see bug#61960.

Message #89 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 18:33:25 +0300

On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 17:00 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Cc: 61489-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:26:58 +0200
> > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> > 
> > > * src/alloc.c (BLOCK_ALIGN): increase from 1024 to 32768
> > 
> > Thanks, installed on the master branch, and closing the bug.
> 
> Note: this change breaks the unexec build, see bug#61960.

Oh, I see, thanks! I'll try to build Emacs with sanitizer, it's usually pretty good at that kind of bugs. Will see if there's anything obvious

Message #92 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:58:06 +0300

On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 18:33 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 17:00 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Cc: 61489-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > > Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:26:58 +0200
> > > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> > > 
> > > > * src/alloc.c (BLOCK_ALIGN): increase from 1024 to 32768
> > > 
> > > Thanks, installed on the master branch, and closing the bug.
> > 
> > Note: this change breaks the unexec build, see bug#61960.
> 
> Oh, I see, thanks! I'll try to build Emacs with sanitizer, it's usually pretty
> good at that kind of bugs. Will see if there's anything obvious

FTR: it might take longer than I expected, because for unknown reason Emacs built with sanitizer isn't built with sanitizer. Yeah, lol. I passed the `-fsanitize=address,undefined` to CFLAGS, and `./configure …` output even confirmed it registered them. However, after everything was built, it does not make use of sanitizer.

I also realised I forgot to pass `-lasan` to LDFLAGS, so the build should've failed at link-stage. Apparently there are some bugs in the build system related to passing cflags through to the actual compiler.

Message #95 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:53:46 +0200

> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
> Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:58:06 +0300
> 
> On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 18:33 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
> > On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 17:00 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > Cc: 61489-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > > > Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:26:58 +0200
> > > > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> > > > 
> > > > > * src/alloc.c (BLOCK_ALIGN): increase from 1024 to 32768
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks, installed on the master branch, and closing the bug.
> > > 
> > > Note: this change breaks the unexec build, see bug#61960.
> > 
> > Oh, I see, thanks! I'll try to build Emacs with sanitizer, it's usually pretty
> > good at that kind of bugs. Will see if there's anything obvious
> 
> FTR: it might take longer than I expected, because for unknown reason Emacs built with sanitizer isn't built with sanitizer. Yeah, lol. I passed the `-fsanitize=address,undefined` to CFLAGS, and `./configure …` output even confirmed it registered them. However, after everything was built, it does not make use of sanitizer.
> 
> I also realised I forgot to pass `-lasan` to LDFLAGS, so the build should've failed at link-stage. Apparently there are some bugs in the build system related to passing cflags through to the actual compiler.

Are you saying that the advice in etc/DEBUG how to set this up and how
to run the resulting Emacs is inaccurate or incorrect or outdated?

Message #98 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 22:58:58 +0300

On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 21:53 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
> > Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:58:06 +0300
> > 
> > On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 18:33 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2023-03-04 at 17:00 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > > Cc: 61489-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > > > > Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 13:26:58 +0200
> > > > > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > > > * src/alloc.c (BLOCK_ALIGN): increase from 1024 to 32768
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks, installed on the master branch, and closing the bug.
> > > > 
> > > > Note: this change breaks the unexec build, see bug#61960.
> > > 
> > > Oh, I see, thanks! I'll try to build Emacs with sanitizer, it's usually
> > > pretty
> > > good at that kind of bugs. Will see if there's anything obvious
> > 
> > FTR: it might take longer than I expected, because for unknown reason Emacs
> > built with sanitizer isn't built with sanitizer. Yeah, lol. I passed the `-
> > fsanitize=address,undefined` to CFLAGS, and `./configure …` output even
> > confirmed it registered them. However, after everything was built, it does
> > not make use of sanitizer.
> > 
> > I also realised I forgot to pass `-lasan` to LDFLAGS, so the build should've
> > failed at link-stage. Apparently there are some bugs in the build system
> > related to passing cflags through to the actual compiler.
> 
> Are you saying that the advice in etc/DEBUG how to set this up and how
> to run the resulting Emacs is inaccurate or incorrect or outdated?

Thanks for mentioning that part of documentation, I didn't know about it and didn't read it.

I am simply saying there is a bug with passing through cflags.

Message #101 received at 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61489: [PATCH v2] Increase BLOCK_ALIGN from 1024 to 32768
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2023 07:47:52 +0200

> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel <at> yandex.ru>
> Cc: 61489 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2023 22:58:58 +0300
> 
> I am simply saying there is a bug with passing through cflags.

The way I do it always works:

  $ CFLAGS='...whatever...' ./configure ...

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.