måndagen den 27 april 2009 17.58.17 skrev Kjetil Barvik: > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I like the end result. > >> > >> But I am not sure about dropping the nanosecond resolution timestamps. > >> The area was extended recently in preparation for ext4; we can take > >> advantage of it to reduce the chance the racy-git avoidance codepath > >> triggers if we keep it. > >> > >> fba2f38 (make USE_NSEC work as expected, 2009-02-19) > >> > >> c06ff49 (Record ns-timestamps if possible, but do not use it without > >> USE_NSEC, 2009-03-04) > > > > Hey, we can leave the NSEC support in. Admittedly removing that was about > > half the patch, but even with it left in, it would be a cleanup. > > I think we should have the NSEC support, as it is a performance > impromvent, at least on my laptop. OK, not a huge improvment, but > still. > > For git version 1.6.3.rc3 I made a litle test, and the difference was > the following for the 'git checkout my-v2.6.25' (from my-v2.6.27): > > for git compiled with for git compiled without > 'make USE_NSEC=1 ...': the 'USE_NSEC=1' part: > > OK open calls: 13872 14386 > OK close calls: 13872 14386 > OK mmap2 calls: 102 649 > OK munmap calls: 61 608 > > so, an improvment of 514 open() and close() calls, and 547 mmap2() and > munmap() calls, for this particular test on my particular slow laptop > disk. > > As I wrote in fba2f38 I would guess that the improvment is larger for > a faster disk, and a SSD disk should be able to see a larger > improvment that I did above. > > -- kjetil Did something pop up that I don't know of that prevented inclusion of this patch, other than the NSEC option, or will it do if just refresh the patch? -- robin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html