From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: gc --aggressive Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:18:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20120417221849.GA11936@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120417220838.GB10797@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vr4vmm29z.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jay Soffian , git , Shawn Pearce To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 18 00:19:04 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SKGjo-0003Jg-6e for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:19:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753489Ab2DQWS4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:18:56 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:37411 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753255Ab2DQWSy (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:18:54 -0400 Received: (qmail 9303 invoked by uid 107); 17 Apr 2012 22:19:01 -0000 Received: from c-67-169-43-61.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (67.169.43.61) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:19:01 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:18:49 -0700 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vr4vmm29z.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:17:28PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > How many cores are there on this box? Have you tried setting > > pack.windowMemory to (12 / # of cores) or thereabouts? > > Hrm, from the end-user's point of view, it appears that pack.windowMemory > ought to mean the total without having to worry about the division of it > across threads (which the implementation should be responsible for). Agreed. I had to look in the code to check which it meant. I'm not sure we can change it without regressing existing users, though. -Peff