[+cc Ingo and Jonathan, as this revisits the "open-code hashcmp" thread
     referenced below]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:13:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > This env comes from jc/sha1-lookup in 2008 (merge commit e9f9d4f), 5
> > years ago. I wonder if it's good enough to turn on by default and keep
> > improving from there, or is it still experimental?
> The algorithm has been used in production in other codepaths like
> patch-ids and replace-object, so correctness-wise it should be fine
> to turn it on.  I think nobody has bothered to benchmark with and
> without the environment to see if it is really worth the complexity.
> It may be a good idea to try doing so, now you have noticed it ;-).

The only benchmarking I could find in the list archive (besides the ones
in the commit itself, showing little change, but fewer page faults) is:


which actually indicates that GIT_USE_LOOKUP is slower (despite having
fewer page faults).

By the way, looking at that made me think for a few minutes about
hashcmp, and I was surprised to find that we use an open-coded
comparison loop. That dates back to this thread by Ingo:


I could not replicate his benchmarks at all. In fact, my measurements
showed a slight slowdown with 1a812f3 (hashcmp(): inline memcmp() by
hand to optimize, 2011-04-28).

Here are my best-of-five numbers for running "git rev-list --objects
--all >/dev/null" on linux-2.6.git:

  [current master, compiled with -O2]
  real    0m45.612s
  user    0m45.140s
  sys     0m0.300s

  [current master, compiled with -O3 for comparison]
  real    0m45.588s
  user    0m45.088s
  sys     0m0.312s

  [revert 1a812f3 (i.e., go back to memcmp), -O2]
  real    0m44.358s
  user    0m43.876s
  sys     0m0.316s

  [open-code first byte, fall back to memcmp, -O2]
  real    0m43.963s
  user    0m43.568s
  sys     0m0.284s

I wonder why we get such different numbers. Ingo said his tests are on a
Nehalem CPU, as are mine (mine is an i7-840QM). I wonder if we should be
wrapping the optimization in an #ifdef, but I'm not sure which flag we
should be checking.

Note that I didn't run all of my measurements using "git gc" as Ingo
did, which I think conflates a lot of unrelated performance issues (like
writing out a packfile). The interesting bits for hashcmp in "gc" are
the "Counting objects" phase of pack-objects, and "git prune"
determining reachability. Those are both basically the same as "rev-list
--objects --all".

I did do a quick check of `git gc`, though, and it showed results that
matched my rev-lists above (i.e., a very slight speedup by going back to

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to