On Aug 17, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 06:26:08PM +0200, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > >>> Is the 15MB limit supposed to be imposed somewhere or is it just a guide >>> of how much memory we expect Git to use in this scenario? >> >> The test should confirm that the the file that is added is not mmapped >> to memory. The process size should be relatively small independently >> of the size of the file that is added. I wanted to keep the file size >> small. The chosen sizes worked for me on Mac and Linux. > > Measuring memory usage seems inherently a bit flaky for the test suite. > It's also a little out of place, as the test suite is generally about > correctness and outcomes, and this is a performance issue. For files >2GB on a 32-bit system (e.g. msysgit), filtering with the previous code always failed. Now it works. I created the patch to change git from 'fundamentally doesn't handle this' to 'works as expected'. > Would it make more sense to construct a t/perf test that shows off the > change? I suppose the run-time change may not be that impressive, but it > would be cool if t/perf could measure max memory use, too. Then we can > just compare results between versions, which is enough to detect > regressions. I wasn't aware of t/perf. Thanks for suggesting this. I agree that testing memory usage might be a bit flaky. t/perf might indeed be a better place. I'm not yet entirely convinced, though. I'm wondering whether the proposed test would be robust enough with a large enough threshold to keep it in the main test suite. Steffen -- 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