On 2013-07-18 19.50, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> Mark Levedahl wrote:
>> On 07/15/2013 10:06 PM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
>>> On 2013-07-15 21.49, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> Mark Levedahl <mlevedahl@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> In order to limit the adverse effects caused by this implementation,
>>>>>> we provide a new "fast stat" interface, which allows us to use this
>>>>>> only for interactions with the index (i.e. the cached stat data).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> I've tested this on Cygwin 1.7 on WIndows 7 , comparing to the results
>>>>> using your prior patch (removing the Cygwin specific lstat entirely)
>>>>> and get the same results with both, so this seems ok from me.
>>>>>
>>>>> My comparison point was created by reverting your current patch from
>>>>> pu, then reapplying your earlier patch on top, so the only difference
>>>>> was which approach was used to address the stat functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Caveats:
>>>>> 1) I don't find any speed improvement of the current patch over the
>>>>> previous one (the tests actually ran faster with the earlier patch,
>>>>> though the difference was less than 1%).
>>> Hm, measuring the time for the test suite is one thing,
>>> did you measure the time of "git status" with and without the patch?
>>>
>>> (I don't have my test system at hand, so I can test in a few days/weeks)
>> Timing for 5 rounds of "git status" in the git project. First, with the
>> current fast_lstat patches:
>> /usr/local/src/git>for i in {1..5} ; do time git status >& /dev/null ; done
>>
>> real 0m0.218s
>> user 0m0.000s
>> sys 0m0.218s
>>
>> real 0m0.187s
>> user 0m0.077s
>> sys 0m0.109s
>>
>> real 0m0.187s
>> user 0m0.030s
>> sys 0m0.156s
>>
>> real 0m0.203s
>> user 0m0.031s
>> sys 0m0.171s
>>
>> real 0m0.187s
>> user 0m0.062s
>> sys 0m0.124s
>>
>> Now, with Ramsay's original patch just removing the non-Posix stat
>> functions:
>> /usr/local/src/git>for i in {1..5} ; do time git status >& /dev/null ; done
>>
>> real 0m0.218s
>> user 0m0.046s
>> sys 0m0.171s
>>
>> real 0m0.187s
>> user 0m0.015s
>> sys 0m0.171s
>>
>> real 0m0.187s
>> user 0m0.015s
>> sys 0m0.171s
>>
>> real 0m0.187s
>> user 0m0.047s
>> sys 0m0.140s
>>
>> real 0m0.187s
>> user 0m0.031s
>> sys 0m0.156s
>>
>>
>> I see no difference in the above. (Yes, I checked multiple times that I
>> was using different executables).
>
> Hmm, that looks good. :-D
>
> Torsten reported a performance boost using the win32 stat() implementation
> on a linux git repo (2s -> 1s, if I recall correctly) on cygwin 1.7.
> Do you have a larger repo available to test?
(I have a 5 years old Dual Core, 2.5 Ghz, 1 TB hard disk, Win XP, cygwin 1.7)
On that machine I can see the performance boost.
Which kind of computers are you guys using?
SSD/hard disk ?
How much RAM ?
Which OS ?
Is there a difference between Win XP, Win7, Win8?
[snip]
--
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