GNU bug report logs - #41865
ns_select behavior in "recent" (2013+, 10.9/Mavericks+) mac-osx

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 41865 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

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

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

From: Lin Xu <lin <at> lastquestion.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: ns_select behavior in "recent" (2013+, 10.9/Mavericks+) mac-osx
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 16:23:55 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

This might be more of a discussion than a bug, or a documentation
suggestion, or something like that.

During debugging of a performance issue, I discovered that `ns_select` in
nsterm.m uses `scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval` to rewake the run loop when
it is called with "only" a timeout. This would occur frequently if a timer
is scheduled with `run-with-timer` only. For example, emacs -Q with

(run-with-timer 1 1 (lambda ()
                      (print (format "%s" (format-time-string "%s"))
                             'external-debugging-output)))

And tab away, eg. have `focus-out` occur, e.g. when
`applicationDidResignActive` occurs. You will notice that after a little
time (this depends on whether you are using battery or not), the unix epoch
time printed will be delayed by ~10 seconds, and then (of course) code in
`timer.el` repeats the timer to catch up.

This is because in 2013, OSX Mavericks added "appnap", which is a feature
designed to conserve battery life and power consumption. One thing it does
is to lower timer frequencies for background tasks.

More context:

1. elisp documentation "timers" clearly already says that a timer might be
run multiple times after being delayed if "repeat" is given.
2. `timer-max-repeats` exists as a defcustom, with a default of 10 (!).
3. `suspend-frame' in TTY will do something similar, but it won't run any
timers while suspended, of course; but, when you unsuspend all the timers
"catch up".
4. I grepped built-in elisp. There are actually only very few cases where
people use repeat for `run-with-timer`, `autorevert` being a major one.
5. I grepped major emacs packages, company, lsp, doom, spacemacs, etc. and
there's almost no usage of `run-with-timer` with repeat.

A few options occur to me:

1. Add more words in documentation in the timers node to clarify that
things like suspending, OS decisions, GC, could impact when a rescheduled
timer might run again. Based on my brief survey, almost everyone really
wants "run again, once". Make it even clearer that is probably what you
really want.

2. Support the usual use case better by making `timer-max-repeats` bindable
around `run-with-timer`, so that one could control how often a late timer
is rerun in a row. It's more likely that the developer of a timer really
knows how often it should run then a user, to be honest.

3. Relatedly, consider changing the default value of `timer-max-repeats' to
1. There seems to be no point having this value be configurable to me
actually. Timer code must already be robust to being rate limited. In what
use case is 10 better than 1? Changing defaults is always impactful,
though... so maybe not.

4. And/or, extend `run-with-timer` with a new API argument, or have a new
function `run-with-timer-exactly-once`, or something, to better cater for
the more common use case.

5. In either case, update `auto-revert` to run `auto-revert-buffers` once
exactly. There's no point running the revert timer handler again and again
in very quick succession - the default being 10 - after being suspended or
delayed. Especially in the case of remote connections, this might be
expensive. Also, various packages use those hooks to do further heavyweight
actions (magit, lsp, eg.)

6. Extend ns* layer code to understand the timer list, so that timers can
be scheduled at the OS level, which allows one to suggest to the OS that
certain tasks are user-initiated or background tasks - e.g "refresh this
buffer tailing" versus "autosave/gc on idle". MacOS has this level of
granularity. This would be a giant undertaking.

My suggestion would be 1+2+5.

(4) seems a little adventurous, and perhaps overkill. However, guiding
developers to do the right thing easily is the key goal of API design, so
maybe it's worth the extra API surface to support. I would hypothesize that
power management & control of scheduled tasks is likely to spread to other
OSes - I haven't checked but I wouldn't be surprised it exists on Windows
already - so there might be value there for the longer term future.

(5) is scary work, and I looked at the number of reverted attempts to
improve `ns_select` in `nsterm.m` since 2013. It would also imply deeply
understanding/changing how the various process.c / keyboard.c / read /
event handling code works; most of that is OS platform independent and
pretty gnarly, so it would be tough going. Perhaps in some long term future
it might be interesting to attempt - deeper integration of OS scheduling
features into emacs would probably improve latency and performance. I
mentioned it here because in a pure sense this would be the "best" fix, but
I think the tradeoffs are not worth it, unless there is platform wide
support for that across Linux, windows & mac osx.

If there is interest for 1 + 2 + 5, I would be willing to submit a patch
along those lines in parts for each.

Thanks,

Lin

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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