I'm sorry for the late answer.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:36:08AM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Kacper Kornet wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:06:49PM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Kacper Kornet wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 03:16:01PM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> >>> My tests show that forks are also a bottleneck in my setup.
> >> What do you mean by "my tests" here? Is it benchmark (perhaps just using
> >> 'timed' feature) with and without custom change removing fork(s)? Or did
> >> you used profiler (e.g. wondefull Devel::NYTProf) for that?
> > Nothing fancy. I look at the footnote produced by "timed" feature. And
> > I see a difference between version with the following patch:
[...]
> > and the one in which git_repo_exist() uses invocation to /bin/true:
> > diff --git a/gitweb/gitweb.perl b/gitweb/gitweb.perl
> > index 18cdf96..4bcc66f 100755
> > --- a/gitweb/gitweb.perl
> > +++ b/gitweb/gitweb.perl
> > @@ -3156,6 +3156,13 @@ sub git_get_project_owner {
> > return $owner;
> > }
> > +sub git_repo_exist {
> > + my ($path) = @_;
> > +
> > + $git_dir = "$projectroot/$path";
> > + return not system('/bin/true');
> > +}
> > +
> What were the differences in timing?
The best results with the host disk caches were:
v1.7.10
This page took 66.960714 seconds and 16517 git commands to generate.
Call /bin/true in git_repo_exist()
This page took 45.583935 seconds and 1 git commands to generate
The patches applied:
This page took 6.090545 seconds and 1 git commands to generate.
> Anyway, if you plan on resending this patch series, then "gitweb: Improve
> repository verification" should be be first, I think.
Thank you for writing that one for me. I will send my two patches to
omit owner and last modification time on top of it.
--
Kacper Kornet
--
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