On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 12:34:07PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 01:01:33AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Commit 49bbc57a57 (commit-graph write: emit a percentage for all > > progress, 2019-01-19) was a bit overeager when it added progress > > percentages to the "Expanding reachable commits in commit graph" phase > > as well, because most of the time the number of commits that phase has > > to iterate over is not known in advance and grows significantly, and, > > consequently, we end up with nonsensical numbers: > > > > $ git commit-graph write --reachable > > Expanding reachable commits in commit graph: 138606% (824706/595), done. > > [...] > > > > $ git rev-parse v5.0 | git commit-graph write --stdin-commits > > Expanding reachable commits in commit graph: 81264400% (812644/1), done. > > [...] > > > > Even worse, because the percentage grows so quickly, the progress code > > outputs much more often than it should (because it ticks every second, > > or every 1%), slowing the whole process down. My time for "git > > commit-graph write --reachable" on linux.git went from 13.463s to > > 12.521s with this patch, ~7% savings. > > Oh, interesting. > > > Therefore, don't show progress percentages in the "Expanding reachable > > commits in commit graph" phase. > > > > Note that the current code does sometimes do the right thing, if we > > picked up all commits initially (e.g., omitting "--reachable" in a > > fully-packed repository would get the correct count without any parent > > traversal). So it may be possible to come up with a way to tell when we > > could use a percentage here. But in the meantime, let's make sure we > > robustly avoid printing nonsense. > > > > Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Compared to the original from: > > > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20190322102817.19708-1-szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > I rebased it to handle code movement, added in the timing data, and > > tried to summarize the discussion from the thread. > > Thanks for resurrecting this patch and for the summary paragraph. Thanks from me, as well. I noticed that we had achieved three billion percent progress on the repository that brought this to our attention, but didn't notice that you had already written these patches. So, I am glad that they are getting the attribution that they deserve. Thanks again both. Thanks, Taylor
