From: "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 11/11] Improve merge performance by avoiding in-index merges.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 02:35:34 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061228073534.GK17867@spearce.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9847899e4ba836980dbfed6d0ea1c82f31f21456.1167290864.git.spearce@spearce.org>
In the early days of Git we performed a 3-way read-tree based merge
before attempting any specific merge strategy, as our core merge
strategies of merge-one-file and merge-recursive were slower script
based programs which took far longer to execute. This was a good
performance optimization in the past, as most merges were able to
be handled strictly by `read-tree -m -u`.
However now that merge-recursive is a C based program which performs
a full 3-way read-tree before it starts running we need to pay the
cost of the 3-way read-tree twice if we have to do any sort of file
level merging. This slows down some classes of simple merges which
`read-tree -m -u` could not handle but which merge-recursive does
automatically.
For a really trivial merge which can be handled entirely by
`read-tree -m -u`, skipping the read-tree and just going directly
into merge-recursive saves on average 50 ms on my PowerPC G4 system.
May sound odd, but it does appear to be true.
In a really simple merge which needs to use merge-recursive to handle
a file that was modified on both branches, skipping the read-tree
in git-merge saves on average almost 100 ms (on the same PowerPC G4)
as we avoid doing some work twice.
We only avoid `read-tree -m -u` if the only strategy to use is
merge-recursive, as not all merge strategies perform as well as
merge-recursive does.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
---
git-merge.sh | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-merge.sh b/git-merge.sh
index a8f673e..74d4fb0 100755
--- a/git-merge.sh
+++ b/git-merge.sh
@@ -341,23 +341,28 @@ f,*)
?,1,*,)
# We are not doing octopus, not fast forward, and have only
# one common. See if it is really trivial.
- git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >/dev/null || exit
-
- echo "Trying really trivial in-index merge..."
- git-update-index --refresh 2>/dev/null
- if git-read-tree --trivial -m -u -v $common $head "$1" &&
- result_tree=$(git-write-tree)
- then
- echo "Wonderful."
- result_commit=$(
- echo "$merge_msg" |
- git-commit-tree $result_tree -p HEAD -p "$1"
- ) || exit
- finish "$result_commit" "In-index merge"
- dropsave
- exit 0
- fi
- echo "Nope."
+ case "$use_strategies" in
+ recursive|'recursive '|recur|'recur ')
+ : run merge later
+ ;;
+ *)
+ git var GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT >/dev/null || exit
+ echo "Trying really trivial in-index merge..."
+ git-update-index --refresh 2>/dev/null
+ if git-read-tree --trivial -m -u -v $common $head "$1" &&
+ result_tree=$(git-write-tree)
+ then
+ echo "Wonderful."
+ result_commit=$(
+ echo "$merge_msg" |
+ git-commit-tree $result_tree -p HEAD -p "$1"
+ ) || exit
+ finish "$result_commit" "In-index merge"
+ dropsave
+ exit 0
+ fi
+ echo "Nope."
+ esac
;;
*)
# An octopus. If we can reach all the remote we are up to date.
--
1.4.4.3.gd2e4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-28 7:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <9847899e4ba836980dbfed6d0ea1c82f31f21456.1167290864.git.spearce@spearce.org>
2006-12-28 7:34 ` [PATCH 2/11] Honor GIT_REFLOG_ACTION in git-rebase Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:34 ` [PATCH 3/11] Use branch names in 'git-rebase -m' conflict hunks Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 4/11] Ensure `git-pull` fails if `git-merge` fails Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 5/11] Honor pull.{twohead,octopus} in git-merge Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 6/11] Allow git-merge to select the default strategy Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 7/11] Avoid git-fetch in `git-pull .` when possible Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 8:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 8:17 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-28 9:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 8/11] Move better_branch_name above get_ref in merge-recursive Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 9/11] Allow merging bare trees " Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 8:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 10/11] Use merge-recursive in git-am -3 Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` Shawn O. Pearce [this message]
2006-12-28 8:08 ` [PATCH 11/11] Improve merge performance by avoiding in-index merges Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 8:24 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-29 17:44 ` Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061228073534.GK17867@spearce.org \
--to=spearce@spearce.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=junkio@cox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).