Re: Make the git codebase thread-safe

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 08:15:24PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Stefan Zager <szager@chromium.org> writes:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:50 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Really, give the above patch a try.  I am taking longer to finish it
>> >> than anticipated (with a lot due to procrastination but that is,
>> >> unfortunately, a large part of my workflow), and it's cutting into my
>> >> "paychecks" (voluntary donations which to a good degree depend on timely
>> >> and nontrivial progress reports for my freely available work on GNU
>> >> LilyPond).
>> >
>> > I will give that a try.  How much of a performance improvement have
>> > you clocked?
>> 
>> Depends on file type and size.  With large files with lots of small
>> changes, performance improvements get more impressive.
>> 
>> Some ugly real-world examples are the Emacs repository, src/xdisp.c
>> (performance improvement about a factor of 3), a large file in the style
>> of /usr/share/dict/words clocking in at a factor of about 5.
>> 
>> Again, that's with an SSD and ext4 filesystem on GNU/Linux, and there
>> are no improvements in system time (I/O) except for patch 4 of the
>> series which helps perhaps 20% or so.
>> 
>> So the benefits of the patch will come into play mostly for big, bad
>> files on Windows: other than that, the I/O time is likely to be the
>> dominant player anyway.
>
> How much fragmentation does that add to the files, though?

Uh, git-blame is a read-only operation.  It does not add fragmentation
to any file.  The patch will add a diff of probably a few dozen hunks to
builtin/blame.c.  Do you call that "fragmentation"?  It is small enough
that I expect even

    git blame builtin/blame.c

to be faster than before.  But that interpretation of your question
probably tries to make too much sense out of what is just nonsense in
the given context.

-- 
David Kastrup