Re: [PATCH v3] packed_ref_cache: don't use mmap() for small files

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> The change to using `read()` rather than `mmap()` for small
> `packed-refs` feels like it should be an improvement, but it occurred to
> me that the performance numbers quoted in ea68b0ce9f8 (hash-object:
> don't use mmap() for small files, 2010-02-21) are not directly
> applicable to the `packed-refs` file. As far as I understand, the file
> mmapped in `index_fd()` is always read in full, whereas the main point
> of mmapping the packed-refs file is to avoid having to read the whole
> file at all in some situations. That being said, a 32 KiB file would
> only be 8 pages (assuming a page size of 4 KiB), and by the time you've
> read the header and binary-searched to find the desired record, you've
> probably paged in most of the file anyway. Reading the whole file at
> once, in order, is almost certainly cheaper.

Yup.  So unless your "small" is meaningfully large, we are likely to
be better off with read(2), but I suspect that this might not be
even measuable since we are only talking about "small" files.