RE: [PATCH v5 7/7] fsmonitor: add a performance test
Show 45 quoted lines
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:jch2355@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Junio C
> Hamano
> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 2:35 PM
> To: Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com>
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org; benpeart@microsoft.com; pclouds@gmail.com;
> johannes.schindelin@gmx.de; David Turner <David.Turner@twosigma.com>;
> peff@peff.net; christian.couder@gmail.com; avarab@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] fsmonitor: add a performance test
>
> Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 6/14/2017 2:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>> Having said all that, I think you are using this ONLY on windows;
> >>>> perhaps it is better to drop #ifdef GIT_WINDOWS_NATIVE from all of
> >>>> the above and arrange Makefile to build test-drop-cache only on
> >>>> that platform, or something?
> >>>
> >>> I didn't find any other examples of Windows only tools. I'll update
> >>> the #ifdef to properly dump the file system cache on Linux as well
> >>> and only error out on other platforms.
> >>
> >> If this will become Windows-only, then I have no problem with
> >> platform specfic typedef ;-) I have no problem with CamelCase,
> >> either, as that follows the local convention on the platform (similar
> >> to those in compat/* that are only for Windows).
> >>
> >> Having said all that.
> >>
> >> Another approach is to build this helper on all platforms, ...
>
> ... and having said all that, I think it is perfectly fine to do such a clean-up long
> after the series gets more exposure to wider audiences as a follow-up patch.
> Let's get the primary part that affects people's everyday use of Git right and then
> worry about the test details later.
>
> A quick show of hands to the list audiences. How many of you guys actually
> tried this series on 'pu' and checked to see its performance (and correctness ;-)
> characteristics?
>
> Do you folks like it? Rather not have such complexity in the core part of the
> system? A good first step to start adding more performance improvements? No
> opinion?
I have not had the chance to test the latest version out yet. The idea, broadly, seems sound, but as Ben notes in a later mail, the details are important. Since he's going to re-roll with more interesting invalidation logic, I'll wait to try it again until a new version is available.