From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit: use a priority queue in merge base functions Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:53:32 -0400 Message-ID: <20120829205332.GA16064@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120829110812.GA14069@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120829111147.GB14734@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vtxvlwt7o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Rast To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 29 22:53:57 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 1T6pGm-0006xn-DV for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:53:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753476Ab2H2Uxi (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:53:38 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:47364 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752579Ab2H2Uxi (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:53:38 -0400 Received: (qmail 1940 invoked by uid 107); 29 Aug 2012 20:53:54 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:53:54 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:53:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vtxvlwt7o.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 Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 09:36:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > The merge-base functions internally keep a commit lists and > > insert by date, which causes a linear search of the commit > > list for each insertion. Let's use a priority queue instead. > > > > Unfortunately, from my experiments, this didn't actually > > cause any speedup. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King > > --- > > I'd probably split this into a few commits if we were really going to > > apply it, but since it doesn't actually make anything faster, I doubt > > the code churn is worth it. > > Thanks. This seems to break t6010-merge-base.sh for me, though... Interesting. It works fine here, even under --valgrind. Did you apply the patches directly on top of 1251cc7? Not that it matters _too_ much if we are just going to scrap it anyway, but maybe it is an indication that I screwed up something that could impact the timing (I did check that the timed merge-base calculations on linux-2.6 yielded the same results though). -Peff