git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "Torsten Bögershausen" <tboegi@web.de>
To: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
Cc: "Mark Levedahl" <mlevedahl@gmail.com>,
	"Torsten Bögershausen" <tboegi@web.de>,
	"Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
	mhagger@alum.mit.edu, "Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>,
	"Johannes Sixt" <j6t@kdbg.org>,
	"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>,
	dpotapov@gmail.com, "GIT Mailing-list" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v2 1/1] cygwin: Add fast_lstat() and fast_fstat() functions
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:49:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51E862FC.4090607@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51E82AE0.9050707@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>

On 2013-07-18 19.50, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> Mark Levedahl wrote:
>> On 07/15/2013 10:06 PM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
>>> On 2013-07-15 21.49, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> Mark Levedahl <mlevedahl@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> In order to limit the adverse effects caused by this implementation,
>>>>>> we provide a new "fast stat" interface, which allows us to use this
>>>>>> only for interactions with the index (i.e. the cached stat data).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> I've tested this on Cygwin 1.7 on WIndows 7 , comparing to the results
>>>>> using your prior patch (removing the Cygwin specific lstat entirely)
>>>>> and get the same results with both, so this seems ok from me.
>>>>>
>>>>> My comparison point was created by reverting your current patch from
>>>>> pu, then reapplying your earlier patch on top, so the only difference
>>>>> was which approach was used to address the stat functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Caveats:
>>>>> 1) I don't find any speed improvement of the current patch over the
>>>>> previous one (the tests actually ran faster with the earlier patch,
>>>>> though the difference was less than 1%).
>>> Hm, measuring the time for the test suite is one thing,
>>> did you measure the time of "git status" with and without the patch?
>>>
>>> (I don't have my test system at hand, so I can test in a few days/weeks)
>> Timing for 5 rounds of "git status" in the git project. First, with the 
>> current fast_lstat patches:
>> /usr/local/src/git>for i in {1..5} ; do time git status >& /dev/null ; done
>>
>> real    0m0.218s
>> user    0m0.000s
>> sys     0m0.218s
>>
>> real    0m0.187s
>> user    0m0.077s
>> sys     0m0.109s
>>
>> real    0m0.187s
>> user    0m0.030s
>> sys     0m0.156s
>>
>> real    0m0.203s
>> user    0m0.031s
>> sys     0m0.171s
>>
>> real    0m0.187s
>> user    0m0.062s
>> sys     0m0.124s
>>
>> Now, with Ramsay's original patch just removing the non-Posix stat 
>> functions:
>> /usr/local/src/git>for i in {1..5} ; do time git status >& /dev/null ; done
>>
>> real    0m0.218s
>> user    0m0.046s
>> sys     0m0.171s
>>
>> real    0m0.187s
>> user    0m0.015s
>> sys     0m0.171s
>>
>> real    0m0.187s
>> user    0m0.015s
>> sys     0m0.171s
>>
>> real    0m0.187s
>> user    0m0.047s
>> sys     0m0.140s
>>
>> real    0m0.187s
>> user    0m0.031s
>> sys     0m0.156s
>>
>>
>> I see no difference in the above. (Yes, I checked multiple times that I 
>> was using different executables).
> 
> Hmm, that looks good. :-D
> 
> Torsten reported a performance boost using the win32 stat() implementation
> on a linux git repo (2s -> 1s, if I recall correctly) on cygwin 1.7.
> Do you have a larger repo available to test?
(I have a 5 years old Dual Core, 2.5 Ghz, 1 TB hard disk, Win XP, cygwin 1.7)
On that machine I can see the performance boost.
Which kind of computers are you guys using?

SSD/hard disk ?
How much RAM ?
Which OS ?
Is there a difference between Win XP, Win7, Win8?

[snip]

  reply	other threads:[~2013-07-18 21:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-10 20:23 [RFC/PATCH v2 1/1] cygwin: Add fast_lstat() and fast_fstat() functions Ramsay Jones
2013-07-14 16:15 ` Mark Levedahl
2013-07-15 19:49   ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-16  2:06     ` Torsten Bögershausen
2013-07-16  3:54       ` Mark Levedahl
2013-07-16 15:42         ` Dmitry Potapov
2013-07-16 22:52           ` Mark Levedahl
2013-07-18 17:50         ` Ramsay Jones
2013-07-18 21:49           ` Torsten Bögershausen [this message]
2013-07-18 22:36             ` Mark Levedahl
2013-07-18 23:32               ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-19 15:34                 ` Mark Levedahl
2013-07-16  3:44     ` Mark Levedahl
2013-07-16 21:36   ` Ramsay Jones
2013-07-16 23:13     ` Mark Levedahl
2013-07-18 17:43       ` Junio C Hamano

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=51E862FC.4090607@web.de \
    --to=tboegi@web.de \
    --cc=dpotapov@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=j6t@kdbg.org \
    --cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
    --cc=mlevedahl@gmail.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk \
    --cc=spearce@spearce.org \
    /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).