Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] Speed up unpack_trees()

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2018, 22:01 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BEK-oFWBbjgZBCDaixtmnxrTYtvHnPeT5enHBr9XJ8fGg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180818144128.19361-1-pclouds@gmail.com>

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 7:41 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> v5 fixes some minor comments from round 4 and a big mistake in 5/5.
> Junio's scary feeling turns out true. There is a missing invalidation
> in keep_entry() which is not added in 6/7. 7/7 makes sure that similar

I'm having trouble parsing this. Did you mean "...which is now added..."? Also, if 6/7 represents a fix to the "big mistake in 5/5", why is 6/7 separate from 5/7 instead of squashed in?

> problems will not slip through.
>
> I had to rebase this series on top of 'master' because 7/7 caught a
> bad cache-tree situation that has been fixed by Elijah in ad3762042a

Cool, glad that helped.

...

Show 8 quoted lines

> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy (7):
>   trace.h: support nested performance tracing
>   unpack-trees: add performance tracing
>   unpack-trees: optimize walking same trees with cache-tree
>   unpack-trees: reduce malloc in cache-tree walk
>   unpack-trees: reuse (still valid) cache-tree from src_index
>   unpack-trees: add missing cache invalidation
>   cache-tree: verify valid cache-tree in the test suite

I read through the new series and only had one small comment. I'm not up to speed on cache-tree stuff, still, so don't feel qualified to give an Ack on it.