From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>,
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: "git reflog expire --all" very slow
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:38:24 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903302231370.4093@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903302154000.4093@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> This if anything makes things just go slower.
>
> Not much, but some. It went from 36.566s to 38.070s. That may be in the
> noise, I've not done any sensitivity analysis.
>
> I thought you perhaps had a missing "parse_commit()" making the
> reachability thing not work (look_up_gently parses the object, but if it's
> a tag deref_tag() will dereference it until it hits a commit, but never
> parse the commit). But that wasn't it.
Ahhah.
I know why it makes things slower.
The slow case is already inside that whole:
if (timestamp < cb->cmd->expire_unreachable) {
if-statement, so the thing that slows down is if we hit a commit that is
_older_ than the expire limit.
But your whole "mark_reachable()" thing only marks things _younger_ than
that reachable. So you mark exactly the wrong things reachable - you mark
the ones that we don't even care about.
If I do
mark_reachable(cb.ref_commit, 0);
instead (to traverse the _whole_ tree, with no regards to date), the time
shrinks to 1.7s. But of course, that's also wrong.
Qutie frankly, I don't really understand why the logic isn't just
if (timestamp < cb->cmd->expire_unreachable)
goto prune;
why is that reachability so important?
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-31 5:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-31 1:43 "git reflog expire --all" very slow Linus Torvalds
2009-03-31 4:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-03-31 5:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-03-31 5:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-03-31 5:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-03-31 5:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-03-31 5:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-03-31 5:38 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2009-03-31 5:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-03-31 5:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-02 6:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-04-02 15:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-03-31 6:08 ` Junio C Hamano
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.0903302231370.4093@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=casey@nrlssc.navy.mil \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
/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).