Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I suspect this measurement will be meaningless when using the net, > because it would only tell you how long it took to write all the > output into some buffer in the ethernet driver. You won't even know > when it is sent out on the ethernet.
But then the existing pre-emption check is also meaningless, since redisplay (due to output buffering) will usually complete before more input arrives. > It's possible that your suggestion will give good results nonetheless. At least, I don't think it will be any worse ... and btw, it also adapts pre-emption to the actual cpu load on the local systems. > Pre-emption probably doesn't work very well with added latency of an > internet connection, especially given all the buffering. (The Supdup > protocol, which I worked on in 1980 or so, limited the amount of > buffering so that pre-emption of Emacs redisplay would work better.) > Usually the whole screenful will get buffered anyway. Does the X protocol buffer requests like that? Last time I looked, it didn't do much buffering before transmitting on the wire. But IIRC, there may be some X-aware protocol which does buffering. > So please install your patch, and document it. Then we can see > how well it works. I'll do that. -- Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
