From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pack-objects: avoid pointless oe_map_new_pack() calls
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:28:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191111142800.GA1934@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01605e2d-5ea7-037d-b25f-3774b88d059d@gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:42:47AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > The current test in p5303 sadly doesn't notice this problem, since it
> > maxes out at 1000 packs. If we add a new test to it at 2000 packs, it
> > does show the improvement:
> >
> > Test HEAD^ HEAD
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 5303.12: repack (2000) 26.72(39.68+0.67) 15.70(28.70+0.66) -41.2%
>
> And these numbers don't really show a quadratic improvement, probably due
> to the test itself needing to do the work to create 2000 packs.
No, the 2000-pack setup happens in a separate (untimed) test.
The reason this improvement is less extreme is that we're only hitting
the extra oe_map_new_pack() call for a subset of the objects. The first
1023 packs have an index field (and because of the way we generate the
packs, I think that includes the "big" initial pack), so not every
object triggers the problem.
This was spurred by a couple of real cases where maintenance had fallen
behind and we had accrued a lot of packs (and of course we wanted to
repack to get out of the bad situation, which became a chicken and egg).
One of those real-world cases with 15,000 packs dropped from ~11 hours
to ~5 minutes.
I'm actually amazed we didn't notice this before (the problem started in
v2.18, which we deployed at GitHub over a year ago). But we try to avoid
ending up with that many packs in the first place, and even when we did,
automated maintenance _usually_ dug them out by itself if you were
patient enough.
> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Thanks!
-Peff
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-11 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-11 11:12 [PATCH] pack-objects: avoid pointless oe_map_new_pack() calls Jeff King
2019-11-11 13:42 ` Derrick Stolee
2019-11-11 14:28 ` Jeff King [this message]
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=20191111142800.GA1934@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=stolee@gmail.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).