git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [GSOC] [QUESTION] ref-filter: can %(raw) implement reuse oi.content?

From
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date
Aug 20, 2021, 16:13 UTC
Message-ID
<CAP8UFD0WB7FYtp9aX4qz5BmLiNz1S5PA1U8-cB8b9zRqdZHOjw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<CAOLTT8Qx3=C=MwRmKbrp=G5T_rQVcaLbZfzzO60m7P-_k1qh8A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi ZheNing,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 3:39 AM ZheNing Hu <adlternative@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
>
> Hi, Christian and Hariom,
>
> I want to use this patch series as the temporary final version of GSOC project:
>
> https://github.com/adlternative/git/commits/cat-file-reuse-ref-filter-logic

I am still not very happy with the last patch in the series,but it can be improved later.

Show 43 quoted lines
> Due to the branch ref-filter-opt-code-logic or branch
> ref-filter-opt-perf patch series
> temporarily unable to reflect its optimization to git cat-file
> --batch. Therefore, using
> branch cat-file-reuse-ref-filter-logic is the most effective now.
>
> This is the final performance regression test result:
> Test                                        upstream/master   this
> tree
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1006.2: cat-file --batch-check              0.06(0.06+0.00)
> 0.08(0.07+0.00) +33.3%
> 1006.3: cat-file --batch-check with atoms   0.06(0.04+0.01)
> 0.06(0.06+0.00) +0.0%
> 1006.4: cat-file --batch                    0.49(0.47+0.02)
> 0.48(0.47+0.01) -2.0%
> 1006.5: cat-file --batch with atoms         0.48(0.44+0.03)
> 0.47(0.46+0.01) -2.1%
>
> git cat-file --batch has a performance improvement of about 2%.
> git cat-file --batch-check still has a performance gap of 33.3%.
>
> The performance degradation of git cat-file --batch-check is actually
> not very big.
>
> upstream/master (225bc32a98):
>
> $ hyperfine --warmup=10  "~/git/bin-wrappers/git cat-file
> --batch-check --batch-all-objects"
> Benchmark #1: ~/git/bin-wrappers/git cat-file --batch-check --batch-all-objects
>  Time (mean ± σ):     596.2 ms ±   5.7 ms    [User: 563.0 ms, System: 32.5 ms]
>  Range (min … max):   586.9 ms … 607.9 ms    10 runs
>
> cat-file-reuse-ref-filter-logic (709a0c5c12):
>
> $ hyperfine --warmup=10  "~/git/bin-wrappers/git cat-file
> --batch-check --batch-all-objects"
> Benchmark #1: ~/git/bin-wrappers/git cat-file --batch-check --batch-all-objects
>  Time (mean ± σ):     601.3 ms ±   5.8 ms    [User: 566.9 ms, System: 33.9 ms]
>  Range (min … max):   596.7 ms … 613.3 ms    10 runs
>
> The execution time of git cat-file --batch-check is only a few
> milliseconds away.
Yeah, it looks like less than 1% overhead.
Great work!
Show 16 quoted lines
> But look at the execution time changes of git cat-file --batch:
>
> upstream/master (225bc32a98):
>
> $ time ~/git/bin-wrappers/git cat-file --batch --batch-all-objects
> >/dev/null
> /home/adl/git/bin-wrappers/git cat-file --batch --batch-all-objects >
>  24.61s user 0.30s system 99% cpu 24.908 total
>
> cat-file-reuse-ref-filter-logic (709a0c5c12):
>
> $ time ~/git/bin-wrappers/git cat-file --batch --batch-all-objects >/dev/null
> cat-file --batch --batch-all-objects > /dev/null  25.10s user 0.30s
> system 99% cpu 25.417 total
>
> The execution time has been reduced by nearly 0.5 seconds.
It looks like it has increased by 0.5s, not been reduced.
Show 11 quoted lines
> Intuition
> tells me that the performance improvement of git cat-file --batch will be
> more important.
>
> In fact, git cat-file origin code directly adds the obtained object data
> to the output buffer; But after using ref-filter logic, it needs to copy
> the object data to the intermediate data (atom_value), and finally
> to the output buffer. At present, we cannot easily eliminate intermediate
> data, because git for-each-ref --sort has a lot of dependence on it,
> but we can reduce the overhead of copying or allocating memory as
> much as possible.
Ok.
Show 6 quoted lines
> I had an idea that I didn't implement before: partial data delayed evaluation.
> Or to be more specific, waiting until the data is about to be added to
> the output
> buffer, form specific output content, this may be a way to bypass the
> intermediate
> data.
Yeah, that might be a good idea.
Previous: ZheNing HuNext: ZheNing Hu
Message 9 of 14 in “[GSOC] [QUESTION] ref-filter: can %(raw) implement reuse oi.content?”
  1. ZheNing HuAug 16, 2021
  2. Fwd: [GSOC] [QUESTION] ref-filter: can %(raw) implement reuse oi.content?ZheNing Hu, Aug 17, 2021
  3. Christian CouderAug 17, 2021
  4. ZheNing HuAug 18, 2021
  5. Christian CouderAug 18, 2021
  6. ZheNing HuAug 18, 2021
  7. ZheNing HuAug 18, 2021
  8. ZheNing HuAug 19, 2021
  9. Christian CouderAug 20, 2021
  10. ZheNing HuAug 21, 2021
  11. Christian CouderAug 20, 2021
  12. ZheNing HuAug 21, 2021
  13. Christian CouderAug 24, 2021
  14. ZheNing HuAug 25, 2021

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.