Re: [PATCH 3/5] tree-walk: micro-optimization in tree_entry_interesting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dan McGee <dpmcgee@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> dmcgee@galway ~/projects/linux-2.6 (master)
>> $ time ../git/git-log -- zzzzz_not_exist > /dev/null
>>
>> real    0m0.945s
>> user    0m0.857s
>> sys     0m0.083s
>>
>>> There is nothing wrong in the patch per-se, but I really wish we didn't
>>> have to do this; it feels like the compiler should be helping us in this
>>> case.
>
> If I resurrect this with an updated commit message reflecting concerns
> raised, can it be merged? Given that it is a noticeable performance
> boost on real-life repositories and I can show it has little (<1%) to
> no impact on most repos, it is a definite win.

I do not see anything wrong in this particular patch per-se, but I really
wish we didn't have to do this.

Please include a few lines of benchmarking result in the updated commit
log message as well if you are rerolling this patch, perhaps like I did
in:

  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/179926/focus=180361

i.e., before and after comparison.

Thanks.
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]