Re: Lost or corrupted `undo-tree' history

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden
> From: Alexander Shukaev <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:15 +0100
> 
> > IMO, it would be a very bad mantra for a Lisp package operating on
> > this low level to disable GC, because that could cause the user's
> > system to run out of memory, and Emacs be killed by the likes of OOM
> > killer agents.  Disabling GC is barely a good idea on the
> > user-customization level, certainly not in packages such as undo-tree.
> 
> Maybe.  I was under impression that for a "short-running" function this 
> might be fine to prevent GC from running in-between some Emacs Lisp 
> instructions.

You can never know whether a given function is "short-running" or not
in Emacs, not with the multitude of hooks and advices we have.  You
_might_ be able to make that assumption safely on the C level, but
even there, it's non-trivial to prove to ourselves no Lisp could ever
run in between.  For Lisp code, this is simply impossible to prove.

> Having said that, I agree that disabling GC sometimes may be dangerous 
> practice.  I remember how after reading [1], I tried that suggestion for 
> minibuffer.  After some time I noticed that I keep running out of 
> memory.  What was interesting is the actual test case.  For example, I 
> could run some search command which pushes matches into minibuffer, say 
> up to 100 000 matches.  As this is happening (and `gc-cons-threshold' is 
> `most-positive-fixnum'), I can see memory consumption of Emacs growing 
> rapidly say from 500MB up to 8GB at which point I cancel the search and 
> exit the minibuffer command.  As a result, `gc-cons-threshold' comes 
> back to the default value and garbage collecting starts immediately. 
> However, the memory consumption of Emacs does not fall back to 500MB, 
> but rather goes down to only e.g. 6GB, which afterwards are never ever 
> reclaimed.

I believe this is the expected behavior of memory allocation routines
on GNU/Linux.  Freed memory is not necessarily returned to the system,
but kept in the process's address space as free memory to be used for
future allocations.

> If I repeat the test, the memory consumption would immediately
> continue to grow off 6GB further as if those 6GB are not reused and
> are somehow stuck holding something that cannot be reclaimed
> anymore.  Hence, you can see that if I way same amount of time, the
> memory consumption would go to around 14GB.  This is how one can
> quickly run out of memory as if there would be some memory leaks
> related to GC.

There are no memory leaks.  Just don't set gc-cons-threshold too high,
that's all.

> Nevertheless, the second suggestion (for speeding up initialization 
> code) from [1], IMO, is a good example of temporarily blowing 
> `gc-cons-threshold' which I still use.

I disagree.  Kids, don't try that at home!  I posted several times on
reddit and elsewhere the procedure I propose to follow to raise the
threshold in a conservative and controlled way, to satisfy the
personal needs of any particular user, without risking any system-wide
degradation in memory pressure.