Re: [PATCH 3/2] Avoid unnecessary strlen() calls

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Yeah, this one works for me too. Even more than for you. For me, 

	git blame --incremental -C HEAD block/ll_rw_blk.c

takes 6.71s (best of ten) normally, and 4.85 (best of ten again) with your patch and Nico's one-liner. In fact, that's a much bigger improvement than I would have expected from the profile, but it may be that you just cut the data cache footprint down a lot, and thus made other things more efficient.

(I just double-checked. Nico's one-liner does help, but not nearly as radically as it did for Nico. The "best of ten" with *just* Nico's one-liner is 6.22 for me - better than before, but the combination of Nico's patch and yours is much more dramatic).

Btw, Dscho's slightly more invasive patch seems to *just* edge out Nico's one-liner for me, with best-of-ten being 6.17s.

The winner is your patch *with* Dscho's slightly more invasive one: 4.69s.

But the difference between the numbers of Dscho's bigger patch and Nico's one-liner really are totally in the noise. Dscho *just* wins the best-of-ten both with and without your patch, but in both cases it's *way* in the noise. For example, while 4.69s was the best for your+Dscho in my testing, the full series was

	0:05.69
	0:04.69
	0:04.82
	0:04.97
	0:04.85
	0:05.88
	0:04.77
	0:04.69
	0:05.12
	0:04.98

so the variability was big enough that I wouldn't say that 0.1s is really all that meaningful even for "best of ten". I didn't try to make the machine totally quiescent, I've got xmms playing in the background etc..

But these kinds of things will definitely vary from machine to machine. It's all good, though.

			Linus