On 6/4/2020 3:27 AM, Abhishek Kumar wrote:
> The struct commit is used in many contexts. However, members generation
> and graph_pos are only used for commit-graph related operations and
> otherwise waste memory.
>
> This wastage would have been more pronounced as transistion to
> generation number v2, which uses 64-bit generation number instead of
> current 32-bits.
Thanks! This is an important step, and will already improve
performance in subtle ways.
> The third patch ("commit: convert commit->graph_pos to a slab",
> 2020-06-04) is currently failing diff-submodule related tests (t4041,
> t4059 and t4060) for gcc [1]. I am going to send a second version soon,
> fixing that.
>
> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/github/abhishekkumar2718/git/jobs/343441189
>
> Abhishek Kumar (3):
> commit: introduce helpers for generation slab
> commit: convert commit->generation to a slab
> commit: convert commit->graph_pos to a slab
If we have a commit-graph file, then we have graph_pos
and generation both coming from that file. Perhaps it
would be better to combine the data into a single slab
that stores a "struct commit_graph_data" or something?
This would change only the slab definitions, since you
already do a good job of wrapping the slab access in
methods.
> alloc.c | 2 -
> blame.c | 2 +-
> bloom.c | 6 +-
> commit-graph.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
> commit-graph.h | 8 ++
> commit-reach.c | 50 ++++++------
> commit.c | 6 +-
> commit.h | 6 --
> contrib/coccinelle/generation.cocci | 12 +++
> contrib/coccinelle/graph_pos.cocci | 12 +++
> revision.c | 16 ++--
> 11 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 contrib/coccinelle/generation.cocci
> create mode 100644 contrib/coccinelle/graph_pos.cocci
I appreciate the Coccinelle scripts to help identify
automatic fixes for other topics in-flight. However,
I wonder if they would be better placed inside the
existing commit.cocci file?
Thanks,
-Stolee
