From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E251FA14 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756570AbdDRRQv (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:16:51 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:35425 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753865AbdDRRQt (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:16:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 27805 invoked by uid 109); 18 Apr 2017 17:16:49 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:16:49 +0000 Received: (qmail 14112 invoked by uid 111); 18 Apr 2017 17:17:12 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:17:12 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:16:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:16:46 -0400 From: Jeff King To: David Turner Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" , "christian.couder@gmail.com" , "mfick@codeaurora.org" , "jacob.keller@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] repack: respect gc.pid lock Message-ID: <20170418171646.5a5mjhd4qjr6ot7d@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170413202712.22192-1-dturner@twosigma.com> <20170414193341.itr3ybiiu2brt63b@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170418034157.oi6hkg5obnca5zsa@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:08:14PM +0000, David Turner wrote: > On 64-bit systems, I think core.packedGitLimit doesn't make a > lot of sense. There is plenty of address space. Why not use it? That's my gut feeling, too. I'd have a slight worry that the OS's paging behavior may respond differently if we have more memory mapped. But that's not based on numbers, just a fear of the unknown. :) If we have infinite windows anyway, I suspect we could just mmap entire packfiles and forget about all the window complexity in the first place. Although IIRC some operating systems take a long time to set up large mmaps, and we may only need a small part of a large pack. > I'll ask our git server administrator to adjust core.packedGitLimit > and turn repacks back on to see if that fixes the issue. Thanks. Let us know if you get any results, either way. -Peff