From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
To: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] gitweb: Cache $parent_commit info in git_blame()
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:15:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812101615.55340.jnareb@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <182871.96175.qm@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> --- On Tue, 12/9/08, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This patch attempts to migitate issue [of performance] a bit by
> > caching $parent_commit info in %metainfo, which makes gitweb to
> > call git-rev-parse only once per unique commit in blame output.
>
> Have you tested this patch that it gives the same commit chain
> as before it?
The only difference between precious version and this patch is that
now, if you calculate sha-1 of $long_rev^, it is stored in
$metainfo{$long_rev}{'parent'} and not calculated second time.
But I have checked that (at least for single example file) the blame
output is identical for before and after this patch.
> > That is what I have noticed during browsing git_blame()
> > code.
>
> What?
What I have noticed? I have noticed this inefficiency.
Why I was browsing git_blame? To write git_blame_incremental...
See also my reply to Nanako Shiraishi with simple benchmark.
> > We can change it to even more effective implementation
> > (like the ones proposed above in the commit message) later.
>
> Where?
jn> Unfortunately the implementation in 244a70e used one call for
jn> git-rev-parse to find parent revision per line in file, instead of
jn> using long lived "git cat-file --batch-check" (which might not existed
jn> then), or changing validate_refname to validate_revision and made it
jn> accept <rev>^, <rev>^^, <rev>^^^ etc. syntax.
One solution mentioned there is to open bidi pipe (like in Git::Repo
in gitweb caching by Lea Wiemann) to "git cat-file --batch-check"
(the '--batch-check' option was added to git-cat-file by Adam Roben
on Apr 23, 2008 in v1.5.6-rc0~8^2~9), feed it $long_rev^, and parse
its output of the form:
926b07e694599d86cec668475071b32147c95034 commit 637
see manpage for git-cat-file(1). Unfortunately it seems like
command_bidi_pipe doesn't work as _I_ expected...
Another solution mentioned there is to change validate_refname to
validate_revision when checking script parameters (CGI query or
path_info), with validate_revision being something like:
sub validate_revision {
my $rev = shift;
return validate_refname(strip_rev_suffixes($rev));
}
or something like that, so we don't need to calculate $long_rev^,
but can pass "$long_rev^" as 'hb' parameter ($long_rev can in turn
also end in '^').
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-10 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-09 22:43 [PATCH 0/3] gitweb: Improve git_blame in preparation for incremental blame Jakub Narebski
2008-12-09 22:46 ` [PATCH 1/3] gitweb: Move 'lineno' id from link to row element in git_blame Jakub Narebski
2008-12-10 5:55 ` Luben Tuikov
2008-12-17 8:13 ` Petr Baudis
2008-12-09 22:48 ` [PATCH 2/3] gitweb: Cache $parent_commit info in git_blame() Jakub Narebski
2008-12-10 3:49 ` Nanako Shiraishi
2008-12-10 13:39 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-12-10 20:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-12-11 0:33 ` [PATCH 2/3 (edit v2)] " Jakub Narebski
2008-12-11 4:08 ` Luben Tuikov
2008-12-11 4:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-12-12 3:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-12-12 17:20 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-12-17 8:19 ` Petr Baudis
2008-12-17 8:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-12-10 6:20 ` [PATCH 2/3] " Luben Tuikov
2008-12-10 15:15 ` Jakub Narebski [this message]
2008-12-10 20:05 ` Luben Tuikov
2008-12-10 21:03 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-12-10 21:15 ` Luben Tuikov
2008-12-09 22:48 ` [PATCH 3/3] gitweb: A bit of code cleanup " Jakub Narebski
2008-12-10 2:13 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-12-10 8:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-12-10 6:24 ` Luben Tuikov
2008-12-10 20:11 ` [RFC/PATCH 4/3] gitweb: Incremental blame (proof of concept) Jakub Narebski
2008-12-11 0:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-12-11 1:22 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-12-11 17:28 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-12-11 22:34 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-12-14 0:17 ` [RFC/PATCH v2] " Jakub Narebski
2008-12-14 16:11 ` [RFC] gitweb: Incremental blame - suggestions for improvements Jakub Narebski
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=200812101615.55340.jnareb@gmail.com \
--to=jnareb@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltuikov@yahoo.com \
/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).