From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] rename: warn user when we have turned off rename detection Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:30:56 -0800 Message-ID: <7vd4qe4wq7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080301061431.GA27301@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vtzjq6gnv.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080301081832.GB31855@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Mar 01 10:32:01 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JVO4V-0005Hg-PX for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:32:00 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751616AbYCAJbP (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Mar 2008 04:31:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751497AbYCAJbP (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Mar 2008 04:31:15 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:36780 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751455AbYCAJbN (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Mar 2008 04:31:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F7B2DB2; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 04:31:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E86C2DAF; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 04:31:06 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20080301081832.GB31855@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sat, 1 Mar 2008 03:18:33 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: >> This reminds me of the 6d24ad9 (Optimize rename detection for a huge diff) >> topic that reduces the above allocation greatly. Some benching with the >> patch may prove useful to establish much higher limits, I suspect. > > Actually, my timings are about the same. While the patch you mentioned > is nice for reducing the memory consumption, we still have an O(n^2) > loop. Yeah, that one was not about the time but about the space, so it is expected.