From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 32039 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2021 22:19:09 -0000 Received: from mars2.inri.net (HELO 1ess.inri.net) (216.126.196.35) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 5 Jan 2021 22:19:09 -0000 Received: from mail-lf1-f51.google.com ([209.85.167.51]) by 1ess; Tue Jan 5 16:54:20 -0500 2021 Received: by mail-lf1-f51.google.com with SMTP id a12so2008106lfl.6 for <9front@9front.org>; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 13:54:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=j/v6/GLuAGaMBV3iEke1A0Jdle2+l7AtPsNPXdKg6ZA=; b=bKvsOTVu73FRGBd25qYh/uCSNGVEELBlvowj/U12/ejOZPeQUNyxuumvBJyy9rQ2ZM KSKDTgGVxrW/68YVEnxrZCRk1H5pBqWpYjTomd36wROhboOwa6ZOaoApsYx7GZCUhIW6 vx962hgVnfNqZCfyHvu0h0lKH5O2r77/7KyMHhNYOGCbpViq04XjXRLuIdzJ7hlT2Ezv +bErlz1Ih3Q5FgOswQ9GSO8cv5QLzVUCf9w4ZXiB0bUi4DfWXlitxXUGJ+IOp/40ix2o x5EzfImxOjDOloWPOBVvTFOmHbAUf1X9Ck0WF9U/hlFrf4s8ATiqpglPl5hu3wHKZUvb jeAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=j/v6/GLuAGaMBV3iEke1A0Jdle2+l7AtPsNPXdKg6ZA=; b=khSPzGhhgeVH/zlXtRWa1lCQ0hGsklph5zraG6G2QyBCJmW8nA4/zdAw/W3hh+20tL PeSXTq7xkzOCN/8Fdo3M1G8VFEY/TBfF8/aUSyhxmDlx6cG9aKdSCeaLOcraC9a83GcW SVtULG4wy6lSvDOCgsqfC5LEawkde+LTQoc6bHaS8O/uQoKf7gjrszrXfFIQneBu/yUF 3wQ3k45YzZkt8nh0nJXfOhbhiwZ+QIckpAuunuQ0xo7XSWcKAul9fg2Wsc2KZQeUde6k qSeTdR9ppnpC02gJ95x4yesOlEKJgZe+j6MQIw+AzdSbyzeCrssn3w+o2S88aaOjcgNd SpYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sS2mkgxMxAcLlNyJJMG9YJzIs0zch3jeZJ5nXX4vgBwHI8o1L kzjlHy7XLGKOkrimfkGP/0bXzZ4WG32rWyGGu7TXrz82lU8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzOnrd2JvhB2U9DoJbAaU1JHlMDlkgH4GptZvtb9A3DsZzYJxiCphnS57Jkg8mp/mZZedjkl3EzCtrM7QiGGao= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4d8d:: with SMTP id s13mr834461eju.305.1609881020366; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 13:10:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:906:6848:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 13:10:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 22:10:19 +0100 Message-ID: To: 9front <9front@9front.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: lifecycle metadata Subject: Re: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf) Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk i did not manage to quote the relevant part: Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW; spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.221.180]) by 1ess; Tue Jan the old server, ewsd seems to have done the same, but somehow gmail didn't take it serious (perhaps people have trained gmail well enough by manually pressing NOT SPAM). On 1/5/21, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote: > the 9front mailing list seems to be making a weird subdomain > quarantine decision: > > Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; > dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com > header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW; > spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net > designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender) > smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net; > dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com > > but the from header does not specify a subdomine, so quarantine should not > apply > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jonas Amoson > Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:10:09 +0200 > Subject: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf) > To: 9front@9front.org > > It is slow to debug netsurf with acid, as it takes a long time to load > all the symbols from the binary. It is the process of checking if a > symbol has been encountered before, the function unique(), that makes > the loading slow. > > Changing Hashsize from 128 to 32768 in acid takes down the loading > time from 4 minutes to 8 seconds for me (45 times faster). Philippe > reported a similar speed increase (30x from 15 min to 30 sec). > > I don't know if it is desirable to change the hashsize in the 9front > repo, as it probably is only netsurf that has so many symbols to load, > that it matters. But it might be that it doesn't harm anything either. > > /Jonas >