Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > Still an impressive speedup as a percentage, but negligible in absolute > terms. But that's on a local filesystem on a Linux machine. I'd worry > much more about a system with a slow readdir(), e.g., due to NFS. > Somebody's real-world NFS case was what prompted us to do 0eeb077 > (index-pack: avoid excessive re-reading of pack directory, 2015-06-09).
Yes. > It looks like I _did_ look into optimizing this into a single stat() > call in the thread at . I completely forgot about that. I did find > there that naively using stat_validity() on a directory is racy, though > I wonder if we could do something clever with gettimeofday() instead. It feels funny to hear an idea to compare fs timestamp with gettimeofday immedately after hearing the word NFS, though ;-). >> I agree that the fallout from the inaccuracy of "quick" approach is >> probably acceptable and the next "fetch" will correct it anyway, so >> let's do the "quick but inaccurate" for now and perhaps cook it in >> 'next' for a bit longer than other topics? > > I doubt that cooking in 'next' for longer will turn up anything useful. > The case we care about is the race between a repack and a fetch. We > lived with the "quick" version of has_sha1_file() everywhere for 8 > years. A very convincing argument. I stand corrected. Thanks.