From: "Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>,
Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>,
Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
Subject: [PATCH] commit: remove padding from struct commit
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2026 16:14:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pull.2309.git.1794500044740.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> (raw)
From: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
On 64-bit platforms, "struct commit" is 80 bytes, 8 of which are
padding:
- 4 bytes between .object and .date
- 4 bytes of tail padding after .index
Reduce memory usage by moving .index into the hole after .object.
On 64-bit platforms this shrinks the struct to 72 bytes and
eliminates the padding, resulting in 10% less memory for every commit
allocated, with no change in behaviour.
On platforms where 8-byte members only need 4-byte alignment (e.g.
i386) both layouts are already free of padding, so the size stays the
same there.
Measuring peak RSS of "git rev-list --all" over an internal monorepo
with ~4.5 million commits (three runs each):
peak RSS time
before ~849 MiB 12.8-13.7s
after ~817 MiB 12.8-13.0s
The ~32 MiB saved is close to the expected 8 bytes * 4.5M commits
(~34 MiB); running time is unchanged within noise.
Signed-off-by: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
---
commit: remove padding from struct commit
I stumbled on this while rabbit-holing on an unrelated change to the
commit walk, by looking at the layout with gdb's "ptype /o".
Digging into the history showed that the size and padding of "struct
commit" have changed several times, sometimes undoing earlier
optimizations.
I also prototyped a regression test that compares the size of "struct
commit" and "struct object" against the sum of their members' sizes,
plus any expected padding. I left it out of this patch because I am not
sure whether:
1. such a test is worth the cost of updating it whenever members are
added or removed, or
2. a unit test is the right place for it.
I am happy to send it as a follow-up if there is interest.
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-2309%2Fspkrka%2Fcommit-index-hole-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-2309/spkrka/commit-index-hole-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/2309
commit.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/commit.h b/commit.h
index 1061ed791b..66a5d245f2 100644
--- a/commit.h
+++ b/commit.h
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ struct commit_list {
*/
struct commit {
struct object object;
+ unsigned int index;
timestamp_t date;
struct commit_list *parents;
@@ -35,7 +36,6 @@ struct commit {
* or get_commit_tree_oid().
*/
struct tree *maybe_tree;
- unsigned int index;
};
extern int save_commit_buffer;
base-commit: 1891de46f79dc444a47db1c87bd0c8c76b5463f2
--
gitgitgadget
reply other threads:[~2026-11-12 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=pull.2309.git.1794500044740.gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--to=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=krka@spotify.com \
--cc=stolee@gmail.com \
/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