From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) 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,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BECE91F61A for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 06:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727929AbgCUGMf (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Mar 2020 02:12:35 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f196.google.com ([209.85.215.196]:42595 "EHLO mail-pg1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727052AbgCUGMe (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Mar 2020 02:12:34 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f196.google.com with SMTP id h8so4183301pgs.9 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 23:12:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=KGQWfzZ6LxvCPy85bPhjnjzU/QZJT7xHRb9xYkAEp6s=; b=opBQKuzWjzXtM/z8HuDpocC8+BVlScQjqH9uBJtSZBtQ7JwzF8jVdD1fcxVkI53v52 QN9snE4lbyyDvfSeL9EDbIOggZqxef3Rqo36r7+b+4QvNnTyX5JgXeKgKKIlGXl/vWSq g36jLPr6gg9tuHyXYDdNhjF/2hczMDDyJKdo+lN/wV1sG1C5IIndbiDND3Xn2KZFOrxp EUyiL9Qz7Wp+vqH3xq0+7K8RFMdu8OljAr0PSJ0pm5gdRvs9e8BTLONc5X/L5Vt2rgUs ub1Rxx9j7MNpugQDkXeGWcGprQvLtx5epu9/RfMjM9QgFjNB9Hw076pic/D5eWRX02sM eeZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=KGQWfzZ6LxvCPy85bPhjnjzU/QZJT7xHRb9xYkAEp6s=; b=VMcM//172xXfgr2fPrePDiRp5AEzaVt7xbsRJRhHq394uiFJ/+HtlV170iI3P0HEal BfoiM8L7G323oYDV6/pBmr7yOtkJi/N7pzBtlJcSW1YOhyEiPQ/6aBKWyaBFB7IsuBgY bmd7ltUiYkPWiONaehhKgF2bPnLVbMTwRXtEJNYb2fT8u2W7qjZpC/Bk1/tLIvrTJEMz bg+3b9pLPDtraBD1E95GZGFWXnVPqBIvc+TSMhm47KN331RCxU9OnnM0YlwQdCAqvyQy EKqrz/9/Vj42/TbnHXWtOjMx54I+P4bmCqwfZFYaXblgrR7a9t1ZTyvPEpjd0xZXbf3O +Npg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2r9PVnXq14iAWVv4rbuXHFg/l4PJpHAQg20h+vaxCVWr3KYPhQ VTphKfL7M6BH3vCcxmCU0RXxW6gcfTc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsE+ZTnWYUSvXeQm2ODIzuQhCbDZFDw+vf1ar+qFC6t+SHhIvCF+jiRq0S7Z9CR6QgWbQ7cfQ== X-Received: by 2002:a62:1c4c:: with SMTP id c73mr13060371pfc.64.1584771152418; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 23:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([8.44.146.30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u5sm7193980pfb.153.2020.03.20.23.12.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 20 Mar 2020 23:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:12:31 -0600 From: Taylor Blau To: Jeff King Cc: Junio C Hamano , Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] commit-graph: avoid unnecessary tag deference when merging Message-ID: <20200321061231.GB30636@syl.local> References: <20200321050455.GB1438317@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200321050455.GB1438317@coredump.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 01:04:55AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 09:56:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Taylor Blau writes: > > > > > This patch avoids an unnecessary tag dereference in > > > 'merge_commit_graph()', which can improve the running time of a > > > commit-graph write by around ~7.4% on average. > > > > That I suspect depends heavily on what portion of your total > > committishes consist of tags, no (in an absurdly extreme case, if > > there is no tag in the repository, there won't be any improvement)? > > > > What tag-vs-commit ratio is the above "average" number based on? > > I think the point is that in this code path we've already identified the > candidates as commits (because they were in an existing commit-graph > file), so treating the items as a committishes in the first place is > unnecessary. If an object isn't itself a commit, we should be dropping > it from the proposed output (possibly we ought to give a warning in such > a case, too, as it indicates the previous writer did something wrong). Yes, exactly. Thank you. > -Peff Thanks, Taylor