From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A344C1F424 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:09:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755437AbeDWOJ0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:09:26 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-f177.google.com ([209.85.216.177]:38177 "EHLO mail-qt0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755281AbeDWOJV (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:09:21 -0400 Received: by mail-qt0-f177.google.com with SMTP id z23-v6so17779453qti.5 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:09:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=ykekuDPy2Vw/zZ5PHoLMbFazgS3e3i9yFpF2toMf4/A=; b=TqnHhqT2hufGOGs/MpYps7ziKHGiM/X94nyJEWSgSguBUdok/LgQsItd4X9s0hOrW5 lIbaud7TrtPMYOd07PjUGVXsjc37onohwDwjHht/r4u/USJeE8X/cjU4qlRaF1JJ8aKD fa5xHVLKKLpoxhDXVRj00ff8yRKFK6n0ZIOceUFCDAAS0Q92He3DTqh8DuUGy+FcmPLR DMJl03GP7ZOrBiWhQDdmKDNCNfoW1sQ9TLaMjYXw4XQVkVMwF/2DGpcIHK2aUX0Iucm+ KXtO0IMpetkvefbfmh8gk9t1RQuvotvJPY5dlc/CjRoNNrp2CbG1WySSOOK/IdSnLnOQ 8b/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=ykekuDPy2Vw/zZ5PHoLMbFazgS3e3i9yFpF2toMf4/A=; b=J5SN/hXbNA1Zvxy5x/S6j9xXz2fcmU/PZSpmjTRhuDcr5/TzWltlRN2sDqv0+DtHb5 ZVrOxSsKlS2pAAKD4XNTorDoWGbe0g5aft0mgokZl8OuLL1gMfb4pnN6l5WSnaIa6IDl Dvy6R2uMhTlKMIqtg1kk56J11oID06yME0XDZyY2tWxRmtqD/uPXCpCxCv60JGLd2gR+ Civ/a2ozsM45QNQ2sOn8ARiYC3iroZEc1Bjav3PyR5IQT0eSv7W70h1yMHcVYNsbZAQZ 9NE533OWE1A27N6RwDO7if4dwZXtDvZyLUAbTSHK+RwkhRmIetH89KMLhxFakk3aWqiw 48yA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCK3AprjdNzy0MTX1F4KLk71hgg8OJ9QZooUorkDFGV1Mgq8ZeQ QR5DeabgsIJBbc4qvaybgqo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZp3v5H7cJ4a64stlkQiQ3aoOBDGt1tzJdMRXr7BLsiLRMMRhL9aMOB4r0s+GKWcccJP4Sf6Fg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:72c2:: with SMTP id o2-v6mr18822200qtp.253.1524492561020; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2001:4898:8010:1:1060:bd2c:4297:50e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k43-v6sm11193926qtc.5.2018.04.23.07.09.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] Allocate cache entries from memory pool To: Ben Peart , Jameson Miller , "git@vger.kernel.org" Cc: "gitster@pobox.com" , "pclouds@gmail.com" , "jonathantanmy@google.com" References: <20180417163400.3875-1-jamill@microsoft.com> From: Jameson Miller Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:09:07 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 04/17/2018 02:39 PM, Ben Peart wrote: > > > On 4/17/2018 12:34 PM, Jameson Miller wrote: > >> 100K >> >> Test                                       baseline [4] block_allocation >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 0002.1: read_cache/discard_cache 1 times   0.03(0.01+0.01) >> 0.02(0.01+0.01) -33.3% >> >> 1M: >> >> Test                                       baseline block_allocation >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 0002.1: read_cache/discard_cache 1 times   0.23(0.12+0.11) >> 0.17(0.07+0.09) -26.1% >> >> 2M: >> >> Test                                       baseline block_allocation >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 0002.1: read_cache/discard_cache 1 times   0.45(0.26+0.19) >> 0.39(0.17+0.20) -13.3% >> >> >> 100K is not a large enough sample size to show the perf impact of this >> change, but we can see a perf improvement with 1M and 2M entries. > > I see a 33% change with 100K files which is a substantial improvement > even in the 100K case.  I do see that the actual wall clock savings > aren't nearly as much with a small repo as it is with the larger repos > which makes sense. You are correct - I should have been more careful in my wording. What I meant is that the wall time savings with 100K is not large, because this operation is already very fast.