From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
To: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fetch-pack: grow stateless RPC windows exponentially
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:17:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZxN9uYprMUXMuWpO3mKfw6WTa3uoG=SXWny7St1OfGzA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGf8dgL3t7uX7yAux0xc2QMJJdmnM0262Quj4o6gDehwA+4JqQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>> Care to elaborate on why you choose 11/10 as growth factor?
>>
>> (As someone who has a tick in micro optimizing:
>> 9/8 is roughly the same exponent, but the division
>> by 8 is easier as it is just a shift by 3. Similar 17/16)
>
> I don't have a specific reason for 11/10 as opposed to, say, 9/8 - I
> think that the time taken to execute this line is negligible compared
> to what's done in the calling code, but I'll change it to 9/8 if there
> is another reason for me to send another patch.
>
>> I guess one design criterion was 10 being a round number?
>> Does it make sense to experiment with the factor at all?
>> Digging into that, LARGE_FLUSH originates from 6afca450c3f,
>> (2011-03-20, fetch-pack: progressively use larger handshake windows),
>> and before we only had a linear growth.
>>
>> So I guess what I do not understand is why we need to slow down the
>> exponential growth at all?
>
> The current code has an exponential (a' = a * 2) then a linear (a' = a
> + 1024) growth. I'm not slowing down the exponential growth - that
> part is retained. I'm replacing the linear growth with another
> conservative exponential growth (a' = a * 11 / 10).
Sorry for the miss understanding. Once we have the new conservative
exponential, we'd have a fast exponential first (a=2*a) and then after a while
a slower exponential (a=1.1*a). So we have 2 exponential curves with different
growth properties.
So my question could be reworded as: Why do we need two different exponential
growth phases (as they are both exponential)? And I answered myself with: Oh,
the exponents are different, so that's why.
But then I tried to understand why we choose the 2 exponents as of this patch.
(Why start with 2 and drop back to 1.1?) Could one exponential phase be
sufficient with an exponent in between (e.g. a=1.3*a with a larger starting a to
compensate for the reduced early growth) ?
Or to reword it another way: Using just one exponential growth is simpler than
2 different exponential growth phases, so how do we explain the added
complexity?
Thanks,
Stefan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-19 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-18 18:36 [PATCH] fetch-pack: grow stateless RPC windows exponentially Jonathan Tan
2016-07-18 18:55 ` Jonathan Nieder
2016-07-18 19:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-18 19:16 ` Jonathan Tan
2016-07-18 19:31 ` Jonathan Nieder
2016-07-18 20:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-18 21:05 ` Jonathan Tan
2016-07-18 21:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-18 22:21 ` [PATCH v2] " Jonathan Tan
2016-07-18 22:40 ` Jonathan Nieder
2016-07-19 16:46 ` Stefan Beller
2016-07-19 19:03 ` Jonathan Tan
2016-07-19 19:17 ` Stefan Beller [this message]
2016-07-19 19:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-19 19:53 ` Jonathan Nieder
2016-07-19 20:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-20 13:40 ` 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='CAGZ79kZxN9uYprMUXMuWpO3mKfw6WTa3uoG=SXWny7St1OfGzA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=sbeller@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=jrnieder@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).