[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What's the problem?
From: |
Ted Zlatanov |
Subject: |
Re: What's the problem? |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:39:39 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (usg-unix-v) |
On 11 Dec 2003, address@hidden wrote:
> Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> writes:
>> > Some questions are (1) are there only a few points within gnus
>> > that represent most of the annoying delays
>>
>> Hashtable lookups, list traversals, and arithmetic. Those three
>> show up all over the place, and they are generally not mutually
>> dependent when done on separate articles.
>
> No, that's not what I meant -- those sorts of operations may in
> aggregate represent the bulk of the cpu time spent, but no single
> operation actually takes very long.
>
> I'm more concerned with what entry points into gnus (I mean, user
> commands) hang for a long time. Find those, and if there are only a
> few of them, see if they can be split up using a pseudo-threading
> framework or something.
I'll list the pieces I know best. There are probably others.
- getting new mail, read/write existing mail
- interacting with network backends
- nnimap: medium read, slow write
- nntp: fast read
- nnrss: slow initial read
- interacting with local backends: nnml, nnmaildir, etc.
- spam-splitting
- sending mail
- building summary buffers
- retrieving articles from overview data
- scoring
- building threads
- spam-splitting (for backends that don't get new mail, e.g. nntp)
- detecting and processing spam
- recognizing spam (connects with spam-splitting above)
- remembering spam with internal or external programs
- tracing article threads back to a folder (gnus-registry)
- look up registry hashtable, look through a list for each
reference ID and examine each cell closely
- look up, modify, and store back registry hashtable entry
>> > I don't know. A framework like the above could pretty simply
>> > handle the I/O bound portion too, though.
>>
>> Remember the auto-save (over NFS or Tramp) problem I mentioned. I
>> don't think it can be done the way you propose, but I'll be happy
>> to be proven wrong.
>
> Sure; I hate auto-save delays too (even more annoying is the address@hidden
> purposeful-delay-to-give-an-error-message autosave does when it
> can't write a file), but I suppose fixing them would require
> low-level changes to emacs.
I'll be the first one in line if those changes ever happen.
Thanks
Ted
- Re: What's the problem?, (continued)
- Re: What's the problem?, Simon Josefsson, 2003/12/08
- Re: What's the problem?, Juri Linkov, 2003/12/09
- Re: What's the problem?, Simon Josefsson, 2003/12/09
- Re: What's the problem?, Miles Bader, 2003/12/10
- Re: What's the problem?, Simon Josefsson, 2003/12/10
- Re: What's the problem?, Miles Bader, 2003/12/10
- Re: What's the problem?, Simon Josefsson, 2003/12/10
- Re: What's the problem?, Miles Bader, 2003/12/10
- Re: What's the problem?, Ted Zlatanov, 2003/12/10
- Re: What's the problem?, Miles Bader, 2003/12/10
- Re: What's the problem?,
Ted Zlatanov <=
- Re: What's the problem?, Richard Stallman, 2003/12/12
- Re: What's the problem?, Miles Bader, 2003/12/13
- Re: What's the problem?, Richard Stallman, 2003/12/13
- Emacs kill buffer, Camm Maguire, 2003/12/14
- Re: What's the problem?, Stefan Monnier, 2003/12/11
- Re: What's the problem?, Miles Bader, 2003/12/11
- Re: What's the problem?, Richard Stallman, 2003/12/12
- Re: What's the problem?, Eli Zaretskii, 2003/12/13
- Re: What's the problem?, Jan D., 2003/12/13
- Re: What's the problem?, David Kastrup, 2003/12/13