From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FAF1FF40 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:49:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751608AbcFUMtH (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:49:07 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f193.google.com ([209.85.217.193]:34081 "EHLO mail-lb0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750907AbcFUMtE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:49:04 -0400 Received: by mail-lb0-f193.google.com with SMTP id w10so1753587lbo.1 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:49:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=J3qrdDIykEBVimx4PHxWc+iqc8IEVr7lI/aUiY9c2a0=; b=hpH9IFa7ysn9oxQr5sqxmbbirVObAEhjDmk29IVFEv9YSKrA12i+5/w8fusJWDP0lH yIMn6fRBtTbuWUjssWSNkXbilI5F93gJpzncLxGnm6Frefm1LrmYaIcZw56WsNOKeM2u G8LoNcVHgdbZDkVSne2zIImmm474AyABGE40ie57RSCVQSkSczKGQC5+jvWRZ+0D++ml nkrx5kgUfs0/3vZf1YTXBA9EjqF7qaULNb3UAEvjSPtzx+1hgakZtdhS6S7eWajbdSus vqU43Z/TqQ5udlxeAUTqUpRGnrbPjqVcpr0ORnW4QaKK38s78z4Gr16pz+R3pkbZYhrV SygQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=J3qrdDIykEBVimx4PHxWc+iqc8IEVr7lI/aUiY9c2a0=; b=MkirvvgnGfWBljjZg2oFBxfog5iQFO8VpkJVqZAA/n4dcWVKzccka0s3UkDyZjvmL6 FdDlU6bF38DampH39jtjDb3WUYU1TOMHHxhOYXO01YG41fDa5q1brsvKEpAmscGW66lQ AeBs8KPmSWqfpo3AYlZOAFdGsEs2xpK+Pk3XtkHKNjNVgzpWIkXZFcU1pDSUmx+BOXtr ETIzBMBmo9LTAW5we+d/QIAafLnAlSwqYSAhww76uXMNzD8vu925Xz/Cppt3Wia9Gq6a P7Q31zyPgOZ8iHixEt50w3Ip+FRwO5PhprYnvax0pdAj2URnso/HyuqkBF0KANHF4ZPu qTBw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLrbkT2OjrSW7xBzlvZTyS5ZHzI2ZiQhjVQ9tOAQm2ZV0c07F0xOX9ZtctKLevAhg== X-Received: by 10.194.109.232 with SMTP id hv8mr19832571wjb.115.1466513342801; Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from par3bztk12.ads.autodesk.com (adsknateur.autodesk.com. [132.188.32.100]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k6sm3568836wjz.28.2016.06.21.05.49.01 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: accommodate for MacOSX From: Lars Schneider In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:49:00 +0200 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: References: <9A11C3D1-3DAC-489F-BDF9-F4D409E8D3F7@gmail.com> To: Johannes Schindelin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > On 21 Jun 2016, at 13:55, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> ... >> I think we definitively should take the "perf-lib.sh" part of the patch >> as this makes the perf test run on OSX and therefore is a strict >> improvement. > > Yes, it was meant as the starting point to get more things to run on > MacOSX. > >> If we don't run any perf tests by default on Travis CI then I wouldn't >> take the ".travis.yml" part of the patch just to keep our Travis CI >> setup as lean as possible. > > Maybe commented-out, so that people like me have a chance to use Travis > for MacOSX perf testing? > >> Running perf tests on Travis CI is probably bogus anyways because we >> never know on what hardware our jobs run and what other jobs run in >> parallel on that hardware. > > While I agree that the absolute timings cannot be trusted, I have to point > out that the relative timings on Linux at least are consistent with what I > could test locally. > > Could you let me know whether a commented-out > > # Uncomment this if you want to run perf tests: > # brew install gnu-time > > would be acceptable? I will reroll the patch accordingly. Commented-out would be fine with me! Independent of your patch: Given that the relative timings are consistent for you. Maybe there is value to run the performance tests (e.g. only on the master branch) in a separate Travis job. Then we could chart the timings over releases. I dunno. - Lars