From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20060420164351.GB31738@spearce.org> <20060420175554.GH31738@spearce.org> <7v8xq0yteb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vfyk8vscl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060421012029.GB819@spearce.org> <20060421024012.GA1213@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 21 05:07:27 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FWlzR-0000wV-Gi for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:07:25 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932216AbWDUDHW (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:07:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932217AbWDUDHW (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:07:22 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:65079 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932216AbWDUDHV (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:07:21 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.108.184]) by VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0IY100FJWY060621@VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:07:18 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <20060421024012.GA1213@spearce.org> X-X-Sender: nico@localhost.localdomain To: Shawn Pearce Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote: > Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > With the patch above the Linux kernel pack is 0.3% smaller with 1% more > > CPU usage. But like for the diff-delta hash list limiting code this > > small overhead is certainly a good compromize to avoid big degradations > > in some other cases. > > Hmm. See the email I just sent. I was seeing a good 10% increase > in my own tests on a Linux kernel repository. But I guess I can > hope that my test was flawed somehow and it really is closer to a 1% > increase in running time, making it more likely that the above fix > makes it into GIT. Well, I repeated the kernel run and this time it took 2.5% more CPU with the patch. But the thing is that I get a +/- 1% difference between successive runs. So while the patch does add a certain overhead, it appears to be in the same range as noise here. Nicolas