On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:04:35PM +0000, Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > The first git status would be inflated due to warming of > filesystem cache. This makes the results comparable. > > Before > Test this tree > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 7519.2: status (fsmonitor=.git/hooks/fsmonitor-watchman) 2.52(1.59+1.56) > 7519.3: status -uno (fsmonitor=.git/hooks/fsmonitor-watchman) 0.18(0.12+0.06) > 7519.4: status -uall (fsmonitor=.git/hooks/fsmonitor-watchman) 1.36(0.73+0.62) > 7519.7: status (fsmonitor=) 0.69(0.52+0.90) > 7519.8: status -uno (fsmonitor=) 0.37(0.28+0.81) > 7519.9: status -uall (fsmonitor=) 1.53(0.93+1.32) > > After > Test this tree > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 7519.2: status (fsmonitor=.git/hooks/fsmonitor-watchman) 0.39(0.33+0.06) > 7519.3: status -uno (fsmonitor=.git/hooks/fsmonitor-watchman) 0.17(0.13+0.05) > 7519.4: status -uall (fsmonitor=.git/hooks/fsmonitor-watchman) 1.34(0.77+0.56) > 7519.7: status (fsmonitor=) 0.70(0.53+0.90) > 7519.8: status -uno (fsmonitor=) 0.37(0.32+0.78) > 7519.9: status -uall (fsmonitor=) 1.55(1.01+1.25) Note that you can directly compare results with the perf suite's "run" script by passing two revisions in addition to the test that you want to run and have the results aggregated side-by-side. In your case, you'd want something like (within the t/perf directory): $ ./run HEAD . p7519-*.sh where this patch is the uncommitted state (alternatively you could compare the two revisions directly in the case that you have already committed). > diff --git a/t/perf/p7519-fsmonitor.sh b/t/perf/p7519-fsmonitor.sh > index def7ecdbc7..9313d4a51d 100755 > --- a/t/perf/p7519-fsmonitor.sh > +++ b/t/perf/p7519-fsmonitor.sh > @@ -114,7 +114,8 @@ test_expect_success "setup for fsmonitor" ' > fi && > > git config core.fsmonitor "$INTEGRATION_SCRIPT" && > - git update-index --fsmonitor > + git update-index --fsmonitor && > + git status # Warm caches Seems reasonable, and the comment is much appreciated :-). Thanks, Taylor
