From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 11:05:25 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] diff --color-moved: add perf tests
Message-ID: <33c63811-b048-8227-6148-16d5bd908564@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <211029.86zgqs3wpx.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>

Hi Ævar

On 29/10/2021 12:06, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 29 2021, Phillip Wood wrote:
> 
>> Hi Junio
>>
>> On 28/10/2021 22:32, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> "Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
>>>>
>>>> Add some tests so we can monitor changes to the performance of the
>>>> move detection code. The tests record the performance of a single
>>>> large diff and a sequence of smaller diffs.
>>> "A single large diff" meaning...?
>>
>> The diff of two commits that are far apart in the history so have lots
>> of changes between them
>>
>>>> +if ! git rev-parse --verify v2.29.0^{commit} >/dev/null
>>>> +then
>>>> +	skip_all='skipping because tag v2.29.0 was not found'
>>>> +	test_done
>>>> +fi
>>> Hmph.  So this is designed only to be run in a clone of git.git with
>>> that tag (and a bit of history, at least to v2.28.0 and 1000 commits)?
>>> I am asking primarily because this seems to be the first instance of
>>> a test that hardcodes the dependency on our history, instead of
>>> allowing the tester to use their favourite history by using the
>>> GIT_PERF_LARGE_REPO and GIT_PERF_REPO environment variables.
>>
>> p3404-rebase-interactive does the same thing. The aim is to have a
>> repeatable test rather than just using whatever commit HEAD happens to
>> be pointing at when the test is run as the starting point, if you have
>> any ideas for doing that another way I'm happy to change it.
> 
> I don't know if it's worth it here, but the following would work:
> 
>   1. List all tags in the repository, sorted in reverse order, so e.g.:
> 
>      git tag -l 'v*.0' --sort=version:refname
> 
>      (The glob can be configurable as an env variable, or we could fall
>      back)
> 
>   2. Go down that list and find the first pair that matches some limit, I
>      think say the first "major" release with 500 commits would qualify
> 
>   3. Make it a GIT_PERF_LARGE_REPO test
> 
> We've got some perf tests that do similar things. I think you'd find
> that with something like this you should able to hand the perf test a
> path to git.git, or linux.git, and probably any "major" repository" as
> long as it follows a common "we tag our releases at some interval"
> pattern.
> 
> Or perhaps more simply:
> 
>   1. Note the number of commits in the history, per "git rev-list HEAD |
>      wc -l" 2.
> 
>   2. Then round that down to the nearest 10^x, so for a 250k commit
>     repository round down to 100k and diff say the 90k..100kth commits,
>     for git.git which has 60k that would be 10k, and the diff is commits
>     9k..10k..
> 
> It means you'll get a "bump" eventually when say git.git crosses 100k
> commits, but it will prorably be stable for any measurement anyone cares
> to do, and means that you can get "realistic" measurements for diffing a
> big chuck on of history from anything from a tiny repository with >=10
> commits, to something truly gargantuan where you'd end up diffing say
> 900k..1m.

Thanks for the suggestions, I was quite tempted by the second idea, but 
in the end I couldn't face rerunning the pref tests and updating all the 
commit messages again. I've added a couple of environment variables to 
allow the revs in the diff commands to be customized.

Best Wishes

Phillip