From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: "René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>
Cc: "Git List" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
"Martin Ågren" <martin.agren@gmail.com>,
"Christian Couder" <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
"Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] object: add clear_commit_marks_all()
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:20:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180112152058.GA10210@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a0ca86b8-e258-2588-1c99-a30e8e60fdbd@web.de>
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 07:57:42PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> > Is it worth having:
> >
> > void clear_object_flags_from_type(int type, unsigned flags);
> >
> > rather than having two near-identical functions? I guess we'd need some
> > way of saying "all types" to reimplement clear_object_flags() as a
> > wrapper (OBJ_NONE, I guess?).
>
> I don't know if there is a demand. Perhaps the two callers of
> clear_object_flags() should be switched to clear_commit_marks_all()?
> They look like they only care about commits as well. Or is it safe to
> stomp over the flags of objects of other types? Then we'd only need
> to keep clear_object_flags()..
I'd worry that the call in reset_revision_walk() might want to clear
non-commits if the revisions have "--objects" passed to them.
I do suspect that clearing flags from all objects would just work in the
general case (since we're limiting ourselves to only a particular set of
flags). But it's probably not worth the risk of unintended fallout,
since there's not much benefit after your series.
> > The run-time check is maybe a little bit slower in the middle of a tight
> > loop, but I'm not sure it would matter much (I'd actually be curious if
> > this approach is faster than the existing traversal code, too).
>
> I don't know how to measure this properly. With 100 runs each I get
> this for the git repo and the silly test program below, which measures
> the duration of the respective function call:
>
> mean stddev method
> ----------- ------ ----------------------
> 5.89763e+06 613106 clear_commit_marks
> 2.72572e+06 507689 clear_commit_marks_all
> 1.96582e+06 494753 clear_object_flags
>
> So these are noisy numbers, but kind of in the expected range.
That's about what I'd expect. The "bad" case for looking at all objects
is when there are a bunch of objects loaded that _weren't_ part of this
particular traversal. I have no idea how often that happens, but we can
guess at the impact in the worst case: having done a previous --objects
traversal in the process and then traversing all of the commits a second
time, we'd probably have about 5-10x as many objects to look through for
that second path. So clear_commit_marks() would win there.
The absolute numbers are small enough that it probably doesn't matter
either way.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-12 15:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-16 12:12 [PATCH] revision: introduce prepare_revision_walk_extended() René Scharfe
2017-12-17 10:20 ` Martin Ågren
2017-12-18 15:10 ` Jeff King
2017-12-18 19:18 ` René Scharfe
2017-12-19 11:49 ` Jeff King
2017-12-19 18:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-12-20 13:08 ` Jeff King
2017-12-21 18:41 ` René Scharfe
2017-12-24 14:22 ` Jeff King
2017-12-25 17:36 ` René Scharfe
2017-12-25 17:41 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] revision: get rid of the flag leak_pending René Scharfe
2017-12-25 17:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] commit: avoid allocation in clear_commit_marks_many() René Scharfe
2018-01-10 7:54 ` Jeff King
2017-12-25 17:44 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] commit: use clear_commit_marks_many() in remove_redundant() René Scharfe
2017-12-25 17:44 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] ref-filter: use clear_commit_marks_many() in do_merge_filter() René Scharfe
2017-12-25 17:44 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] object: add clear_commit_marks_all() René Scharfe
2018-01-10 7:58 ` Jeff King
2018-01-11 18:57 ` René Scharfe
2018-01-12 15:20 ` Jeff King [this message]
2017-12-25 17:45 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] bisect: avoid using the rev_info flag leak_pending René Scharfe
2018-01-10 8:07 ` Jeff King
2018-01-11 18:57 ` René Scharfe
2018-01-12 15:23 ` Jeff King
2017-12-25 17:46 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] bundle: " René Scharfe
2017-12-28 21:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-01-10 8:18 ` Jeff King
2017-12-25 17:47 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] checkout: " René Scharfe
2017-12-28 21:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-12-25 17:47 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] revision: remove the unused " René Scharfe
2017-12-25 17:48 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] commit: remove unused function clear_commit_marks_for_object_array() René Scharfe
2017-12-28 20:32 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] revision: get rid of the flag leak_pending Junio C Hamano
2018-01-10 8:20 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180112152058.GA10210@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=l.s.r@web.de \
--cc=martin.agren@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).