From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [PATCH] basic threaded delta search Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <11890591912193-git-send-email-nico@cam.org> <11890591923123-git-send-email-nico@cam.org> <11890591923270-git-send-email-nico@cam.org> <1189059193250-git-send-email-nico@cam.org> <7vwsv4cm6b.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20070907061105.GA1379@auto.tuwien.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Koegler X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 07 18:19:37 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ITgYR-0005sB-BP for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:19:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932441AbXIGQTa (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:19:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757509AbXIGQTa (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:19:30 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:27646 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757469AbXIGQT3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:19:29 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JO000JJRAOEH720@VL-MO-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:19:26 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <20070907061105.GA1379@auto.tuwien.ac.at> X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Martin Koegler wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:48:06AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Also how would this interact with the LRU > > > delta base window we discussed a week or two ago? > > > > This is completely orthogonal. > > Maybe we should adjust the split point of the the object list so, that > objects with the same name hash are processed by one thread, as the LRU > could provide the most benefit for these objects. > > I think of something like (totally untested): > for (i = 0; i < NR_THREADS; i++) { > unsigned sublist_size = list_size / (NR_THREADS - i); > + while (sublist_size < list_size && list[0]->hash == list[1]->hash) > + sublist_size++; I guess you mean list[sublist_size-1]->hash == list[sublist_size]->hash. But yeah that is a good idea. Nicolas