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 40497207BC for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:25:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758851AbdDSBZe (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:25:34 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:35659 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758823AbdDSBZc (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:25:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 24278 invoked by uid 109); 19 Apr 2017 01:25:31 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:25:30 +0000 Received: (qmail 17706 invoked by uid 111); 19 Apr 2017 01:25:53 -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 21:25:53 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:25:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:25:28 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Thomas Gummerer Cc: git@jeffhostetler.com, git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, Jeff Hostetler Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/5] p0006-read-tree-checkout: perf test to time read-tree Message-ID: <20170419012528.2xjnwrpgvlsgzszj@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170417213734.55373-1-git@jeffhostetler.com> <20170417213734.55373-3-git@jeffhostetler.com> <20170418214025.GA4989@hank> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170418214025.GA4989@hank> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:40:25PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > +test_perf_default_repo > > I like that it's possible to use a real world repository now instead > of forcing the use of a synthetic repository :) > > Is there a reason for this being test_perf_default_repo instead of > test_perf_large_repo? It seems like generating a large repo is what > you are doing with repos/many-files.sh. I'm actually of the opinion that the default/large repo thing should go away. I think the original premise was that you could pick a default/large pair and run the whole suite against them. But in reality, I have always been confused about which one I should use when writing a perf test, and what I should use when running the suite. I think it would be more useful for the perf tests to just respect a single repo parameter. Then you could run the whole suite against each repo in turn. And we could get results for git.git, linux.git, some synthetic cases, the gigantic Windows repo, etc. -Peff