From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/41561 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jan Vroonhof Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Checking new mail very slow with current CVS Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:00:04 +0000 Organization: Gnus Information Center Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035176937 6800 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 05:08:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 05:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 21990 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2002 13:01:54 -0000 Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu (mail@129.7.128.13) by mastaler.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2002 13:01:54 -0000 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 16MTxT-0000lI-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:00:27 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:00:19 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA06958 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 07:00:05 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 20671 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2002 13:00:08 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 20666 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2002 13:00:08 -0000 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org (HELO quimby2.netfonds.no) (195.204.10.66) by gnus.org with SMTP; 4 Jan 2002 13:00:08 -0000 Original-Received: from news by quimby2.netfonds.no with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16MTxW-00049o-00 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:00:30 +0100 Original-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Path: not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnus.ding Original-Lines: 41 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: inchgower.isltd.insignia.com Original-X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1010149230 15983 195.74.141.61 (4 Jan 2002 13:00:30 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jan 2002 13:00:30 GMT X-Jans-Posting-Style: outside-news User-Agent: Gnus/5.090005 (Oort Gnus v0.05) XEmacs/21.4 (Civil Service, i686-pc-linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ab/U51np+7If/B0m+DDYEWP5XSc= Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:41561 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:41561 Simon Josefsson writes: >> You guys are aware that XEmacs has native profiling support (see >> 'start-profiling')? > > Cool! I wasn't aware of it, it seems to give more reliable results. > (Shouldn't `start-profiling' be a interactive function?) Possibly... The main interactive use is supposed to be M-x profile-key-sequence or lisp-eval calls.. >> Although that does not do tree based profiling. > > What is that? Does elp do it? I meant that the fact the current XEmacs profiling only counts time to the function we are actually in. i.e. in (def foo () bar()) If bar takes 3 seconds that time isn't counted to foo. XEmacs does this because it is most easy to implement if you do sample based profiling. Elp on the other hand attributes the time to both foo and bar. That is more easy to do if you do wrapping. It would be possible to add this to XEmacs as well (for instance by walking the stack on each profiling tick). True tree based profiling will give you times for each path from the root in the call tree, i.e. with tell you we spend 3 seconds in bar when called from foo and 0.5 seconds when called from xyz. All three are useful. The current XEmacs way is better at spotting lowlevel hotspots, for instance so we know which C functions to optimize to make that app go futher. The elp way is better at spotting higher-level problem (and luckily the loss of accuracy isn't as important there). Jan