Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 05:32:39AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> That implies you're just seeing noise. And indeed, with the patch below >> I get: >> >> Test HEAD^ HEAD >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 1400.2: update-ref 1.93(1.57+0.42) 1.91(1.55+0.42) -1.0% >> 1400.3: update-ref --stdin 0.07(0.02+0.05) 0.07(0.02+0.05) +0.0% >> >> Running it a second time gets me +0.5%. :) > > Yeah, it's also been my take that OS-level overhead is probably going to > matter more than those access calls, and I argued such back when I > proposed the hook. So I'm perfectly happy to see this caching mechanism > go. Is the above about negative cache? IOW, does the above demonstrate that one extra access() to make sure there is no hook does not hurt us anything? If so, yes, I am 100% for removing the cache mechanism. Thanks for driving design decision with numbers. That's always pleasant to see.
