From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 17:38:48 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] get_revision_internal(): make check less mysterious Message-ID: <7vsj1gnsgn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <1368995232-11042-11-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Michael Haggerty writes: > The condition under which gc_boundary() is called was previously > > if (alloc <= nr) > > . But by construction, nr can never exceed alloc, so the check looks > unnecessarily mysterious. In fact, the purpose of the check is to try > to avoid a realloc() call by shrinking the array if possible if it is > at its allocation limit when a new element is about to be added. So > change the check to > > if (nr == alloc) > > and add a comment to explain what's going on. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty > --- > Please check that I have properly described the purpose of this check. > > The way the code is written, it looks like a bad pattern of growth and > shrinkage of the array (namely, just under the resize limit) could > cause gc_boundary() to be called over and over again with (most of) > the same data. I hope that the author had some reason to believe that > such a pattern is unlikely. That is about comparing with "alloc", not having high and low watermarks, right? I do not see "alloc <= nr" is mysterious at all; it is merely being defensive. > > revision.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c > index 2e0992b..19c59f4 100644 > --- a/revision.c > +++ b/revision.c > @@ -2573,8 +2573,10 @@ static struct commit *get_revision_internal(struct rev_info *revs) > if (p->flags & (CHILD_SHOWN | SHOWN)) > continue; > p->flags |= CHILD_SHOWN; > - if (revs->boundary_commits.alloc <= revs->boundary_commits.nr) > + if (revs->boundary_commits.nr == revs->boundary_commits.alloc) { > + /* Try to make space and thereby avoid a realloc(): */ > gc_boundary(&revs->boundary_commits); > + } > add_object_array(p, NULL, &revs->boundary_commits); > }