Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] read-cache.c: remove #ifdef NO_PTHREADS
- From
Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 29, 2018, 17:07 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4e3c20f1-580f-0a34-eb86-028bf8dd1b4b@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20181029143033.GF17668@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On 10/29/2018 10:30 AM, Jeff King wrote:
Show 31 quoted lines
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 07:30:06PM +0200, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>
>> -#ifndef NO_PTHREADS
>> - nr_threads = git_config_get_index_threads();
>> + if (HAVE_THREADS) {
>> + nr_threads = git_config_get_index_threads();
>>
>> - /* TODO: does creating more threads than cores help? */
>> - if (!nr_threads) {
>> - nr_threads = istate->cache_nr / THREAD_COST;
>> - cpus = online_cpus();
>> - if (nr_threads > cpus)
>> - nr_threads = cpus;
>> + /* TODO: does creating more threads than cores help? */
>> + if (!nr_threads) {
>> + nr_threads = istate->cache_nr / THREAD_COST;
>> + cpus = online_cpus();
>> + if (nr_threads > cpus)
>> + nr_threads = cpus;
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + nr_threads = 1;
>> }
>
> I'd have thought we could just rely on online_cpus() returning 1 here to
> avoid having to ask "do we even have thread support?". But I guess that
> TODO comment implies that we might one day two 2 threads on a single
> CPU.
>
> -Peff
> See my earlier response - the HAVE_THREADS tests are not needed.
We can remove the "TODO" comment - I tested it and it wasn't faster to have more threads than CPUs.