Re: Performance regression in "update" hooks

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Mar 2, 2026, 14:27 UTC
Message-ID: <aaWeSu-d1FMz_sW8@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <874imy7220.fsf@collabora.com>

On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 04:12:39PM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:

Show 44 quoted lines

> On Mon, 02 Mar 2026, Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Mar 2026, Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Bencher has alerted me that there's been two performance regressions in
> >> git-receive-pack(1) [1] and git-fetch(1) [2].
> >>
> >> The first one is quite easy to reproduce with the benchmarks at [3] and
> >> bisects to fc148b146a (receive-pack: convert update hooks to new API,
> >> 2026-01-28):
> >>
> >>   $ cd receive-refs
> >>   $ ./run --revisions /path/to/your/git/repo \
> >>       fc148b146ad41be71a7852c4867f0773cbfe1ff9~,fc148b146ad41be71a7852c4867f0773cbfe1ff9 \
> >>       --parameter-list refformat reftable \
> >>       --parameter-list refcount 10000
> >>
> >>   Benchmark 1: receive: many refs (refformat = reftable, refcount = 10000, revision = fc148b146ad41be71a7852c4867f0773cbfe1ff9~)
> >>     Time (mean ± σ):     182.0 ms ±   2.7 ms    [User: 91.5 ms, System: 89.3 ms]
> >>     Range (min … max):   175.8 ms … 185.0 ms    15 runs
> >>
> >>   Benchmark 2: receive: many refs (refformat = reftable, refcount = 10000, revision = fc148b146ad41be71a7852c4867f0773cbfe1ff9)
> >>     Time (mean ± σ):     484.6 ms ±  27.6 ms    [User: 176.2 ms, System: 376.1 ms]
> >>     Range (min … max):   406.2 ms … 495.1 ms    10 runs
> >>
> >>   Summary
> >>     receive: many refs (refformat = reftable, refcount = 10000, revision = fc148b146ad41be71a7852c4867f0773cbfe1ff9~) ran
> >>       2.66 ± 0.16 times faster than receive: many refs (refformat = reftable, refcount = 10000, revision = fc148b146ad41be71a7852c4867f0773cbfe1ff9)
> >>
> >> I've Cc'd Adrian.
> >
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > I looked at the commits before and after the many-refs test regression
> > and it appears the regressions started after Junio landed v2 of the
> > config series in next [1], which might cause it.
> >
> > v2 was not ready to land. I sent v3 yesterday addressing all the
> > feedback, didn't even realize v2 landed. :)
> >
> > Does the regression go away if you revert [1] ?
> >
> > I don't have the benchmark setup and it might be easier for you to
> > confirm?

All you need is a normal development infra and hyperfine. The benchmarking scripts in the repo I linked should then "just work" with the above invocation.

[snip]

> Actually I think these are two separate issues.
> 
> I will reproduce and look into the regression which bisected to
> c148b146a (receive-pack: convert update hooks to new API,  2026-01-28).

Perfect, thanks!

Patrick