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-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4491F66F for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 16:10:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728107AbgKCQKC (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:10:02 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:46202 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728071AbgKCQKB (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:10:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 6452 invoked by uid 109); 3 Nov 2020 16:10:01 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 16:10:01 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 1891 invoked by uid 111); 3 Nov 2020 16:10:00 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:10:00 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:10:00 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Elijah Newren Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] hashmap: introduce a new hashmap_partial_clear() Message-ID: <20201103161000.GC444466@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <061ab45a9bdae5352f62fa6e81bb21ae5c94b8df.1602549650.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <20201030134131.GD3277724@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 09:03:38AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > It would be nice if we had some actual perf numbers to report here, so > > we could know exactly how much it was buying us. But I guess things are > > a bit out-of-order there. You want to do this series first and then > > build merge-ort on top as a user. We could introduce the basic data > > structure first, then merge-ort, and then start applying optimizations > > with real-world measurements. But I'm not sure it's worth the amount of > > time you'd have to spend to reorganize in that way. > > Yeah, the perf benefits didn't really come until I added a > strmap_clear() based on this, so as you discovered I put perf numbers > in patch 7 of this series. Should I add a mention of the later commit > message at this point in the series? Nah, I think it's OK as it is. That kind of thing matters more for reviewing than when you find the commit later on. And we're already discussing it during the review. -Peff