list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <>
To: Thomas Braun <>
Cc: Derrick Stolee <>,
Subject: t7900's new expensive test
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 06:39:24 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <X8YrbDpC9/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 06:23:28AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

> I'm not sure if EXPENSIVE is the right ballpark, or if we'd want a
> VERY_EXPENSIVE. On my machine, the whole test suite for v2.29.0 takes 64
> seconds to run, and setting GIT_TEST_LONG=1 bumps that to 103s. It got a
> bit worse since then, as t7900 adds an EXPENSIVE test that takes ~200s
> (it's not strictly additive, since we can work in parallel on other
> tests for the first bit, but still, yuck).

Since Stolee is on the cc and has already seen me complaining about his
test, I guess I should expand a bit. ;)

There are some small wins possible (e.g., using "commit --quiet" seems
to shave off ~8s when we don't even think about writing a diff), but
fundamentally the issue is that it just takes a long time to "git add"
the 5.2GB worth of random data. I almost wonder if it would be worth it
to hard-coded the known sha1 and sha256 names of the blobs, and write
them straight into the appropriate loose object file. I guess that is
tricky, though, because it actually needs to be a zlib stream, not just
the output of "test-tool genrandom".

Though speaking of which, another easy win might be setting
core.compression to "0". We know the random data won't compress anyway,
so there's no point in spending cycles on zlib.

Doing this:

diff --git a/t/ b/t/
index d9e68bb2bf..849c6d1361 100755
--- a/t/
+++ b/t/
@@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ test_expect_success 'incremental-repack task' '
 test_expect_success EXPENSIVE 'incremental-repack 2g limit' '
+	test_config core.compression 0 &&
 	for i in $(test_seq 1 5)
 		test-tool genrandom foo$i $((512 * 1024 * 1024 + 1)) >>big ||
@@ -257,7 +259,7 @@ test_expect_success EXPENSIVE 'incremental-repack 2g limit' '
 		return 1
 	done &&
 	git add big &&
-	git commit -m "Add big file (2)" &&
+	git commit -qm "Add big file (2)" &&
 	# ensure any possible loose objects are in a pack-file
 	git maintenance run --task=loose-objects &&

seems to shave off ~140s from the test. I think we could get a little
more by cleaning up the enormous objects, too (they end up causing the
subsequent test to run slower, too, though perhaps it was intentional to
impact downstream tests).


  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-01 11:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-13  5:06 [PATCH 0/5] handling 4GB .idx files Jeff King
2020-11-13  5:06 ` [PATCH 1/5] compute pack .idx byte offsets using size_t Jeff King
2020-11-13  5:07 ` [PATCH 2/5] use size_t to store pack .idx byte offsets Jeff King
2020-11-13  5:07 ` [PATCH 3/5] fsck: correctly compute checksums on idx files larger than 4GB Jeff King
2020-11-13  5:07 ` [PATCH 4/5] block-sha1: take a size_t length parameter Jeff King
2020-11-13  5:07 ` [PATCH 5/5] packfile: detect overflow in .idx file size checks Jeff King
2020-11-13 11:02   ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-11-15 14:43 ` [PATCH 0/5] handling 4GB .idx files Thomas Braun
2020-11-16  4:10   ` Jeff King
2020-11-16 13:30     ` Derrick Stolee
2020-11-16 23:49       ` Jeff King
2020-11-30 22:57     ` Thomas Braun
2020-12-01 11:23       ` Jeff King
2020-12-01 11:39         ` Jeff King [this message]
2020-12-01 20:55           ` t7900's new expensive test Derrick Stolee
2020-12-02  2:47             ` [PATCH] t7900: speed up " Jeff King
2020-12-03 15:23               ` Derrick Stolee
2020-12-01 18:27         ` [PATCH 0/5] handling 4GB .idx files Taylor Blau
2020-12-02 13:12           ` 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:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=X8YrbDpC9/ \ \ \ \ \

* 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

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).