Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:
> perf reports memcpy at the the 6th position  in "git status -uno"
> using index v4, and strbuf_remove() in expand_name_field() accounts
> for 25% of that. What we need here is a simple string cut and a
> cheaper strbuf_setlen() should be enough.
While it is true that strbuf_remove(&sb, sb.len - trim, trim) is
equivalent to strbuf_setlen(&sb, sb.len - trim), I wonder why we see
any memcpy() in the first place.
strbuf_remove(&sb, sb.len - trim, trim) is turned into
strbuf_splice(&sb, sb.len - trim, trim, NULL, 0) and then in turn it
does these two:
memmove(sb.buf + (sb.len - trim) + 0,
sb.buf + sb.len, 0);
memcpy(sb.buf + (sb.len - trim), NULL, 0);
both of which should be a no-op, no?
There also is this call that has the same "trim at the right end":
pretty.c: strbuf_remove(sb, sb->len - trimlen, trimlen);
It almost makes me suggest that it may be a better solution to make
strbuf_remove() more intelligent about such a call pattern _if_
these empty memmove/memcpy are so expensive, perhaps like the
attached. It could be that strbuf_splice() should be the one that
ought to be more intelligent, but I'll leave it up to you to
benchmark to find out where the best place to optimize is.
strbuf.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/strbuf.c b/strbuf.c
index 05d0693..12db700 100644
@@ -179,7 +179,10 @@ void strbuf_insert(struct strbuf *sb, size_t pos, const
void *data, size_t len)
void strbuf_remove(struct strbuf *sb, size_t pos, size_t len)
- strbuf_splice(sb, pos, len, NULL, 0);
+ if (pos + len == sb->len)
+ strbuf_setlen(sb, pos);
+ strbuf_splice(sb, pos, len, NULL, 0);
void strbuf_add(struct strbuf *sb, const void *data, size_t len)
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