From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: gc --aggressive Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 16:02:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20120428122533.GA12098@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120429113431.GA24254@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120501162806.GA15614@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120501171640.GA16623@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120501193537.GA26245@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Matthieu Moy , Jay Soffian , Junio C Hamano , Shawn Pearce To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 01 22:03:17 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SPJHx-0001wE-Du for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 22:03:09 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757499Ab2EAUDE (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2012 16:03:04 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:56014 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752454Ab2EAUDD (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2012 16:03:03 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.130.28.92]) by VL-VM-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-22.01 64bit (built Apr 21 2011)) with ESMTP id <0M3D00JUG10X9N60@VL-VM-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 16:02:58 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <20120501193537.GA26245@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 1 May 2012, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 01:59:08PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > One final quick test if you feel like it: I've never been sure that > > the last comparison in type_size_sort() is correct. Maybe it should be > > the other way around. Currently it reads: > > > > return a < b ? -1 : (a > b); > > I think it is right. At least it should put recent things near the > front of the array, just as we are putting bigger things there. Right. In fact, it seems that _I_ did think about it *five* years ago (man... time flies by) given commit adcc70950e, and then I reversed the whole order in commit b904166ccb to get what we have today. > > replace this line with: > > > > return b < a ? -1 : (b > a); > > No, it's not better. A few of the pack sizes are better, but some of > them are worse. And the CPU times are still quite bad. OK. We can scratch that. Nicolas