From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CF5C2B9F4 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:05:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B013619F1 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:05:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231845AbhF1IHs (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 04:07:48 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34990 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229911AbhF1IHr (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 04:07:47 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com (mail-ed1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA479C061574 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id h2so24531789edt.3 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:05:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version; bh=zk9OUrLzjjTtjEzvAocUsnCONEwvzv34OtB03tZ4K2Q=; b=mqGJG1ynW3hdCna78uTS3AqWTWr/ntQQC9AVIjhpiCotpvwyjzZHE8TuFL0/QumlES rd2K1i7PIbFVX97jL0Y1Yw7/c17rn82y9kjlG5kSlrtvH3kDaJhsjY+N3WHYfiUtbhk0 shV5bl/0YnocYaLRFlvYACx+nWdCTQBGsmz8J666WNU0hi4mXwPyEhBmaiEAbgjy/gGv 2pIRYqpX27yXZYi1llhuXz9KB0cBO1QVec+Ps3u2AyoPkZEpYyZOl6Ag++GER/pOGm/u 6SR0k7qjDys/06jgbHt+9qmI0So783IZOWSLql4aJ8EdU/q/BA/Tzz9phccbfjYpE0V7 rnEA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version; bh=zk9OUrLzjjTtjEzvAocUsnCONEwvzv34OtB03tZ4K2Q=; b=E4x0dEpssgn8+HMgrOIGlUvZoaL+2OVHpSa3pRsHbDtut9XYr7b6Ot0y20J9xvf9Rl LybF3rUwtrxLXHIYAQ9sN+MxhOvr7lHXUkcavdF2BD4y+tibZ+83ck3mRebQG1NqtrBg 41UKfmE93d87Uodp1L+/Mp4BBfm4yXYKjJtKRPTJQn8LhSlQdE3hedMX+SxY2LJ3o/I6 Ex1QiyiHj249TFamGMbCDM3IB6/A6N/Lio0FXN8gxQ7knxGRLsFqaMVgTNYKFjQI0mAR vr1eVA6Nuv2Y7vPXWDGKEtebabRQN0LgOmZFFwdUx368aK8ox7788YoLPzVteA0zby/3 7HfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530agQbclekPdVNM627WipXNx4Q5vvqfN6nnkiq/ektWXxgMOqjM Z0TPfITlvxcYNk6+EihD09I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwj7k0DehJ++x7wK/TXxTAE9yhaOnkd3vh27/uvf54frRX3x06E4zJS62+tQ8GKmw66gxKOpQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:50c6:: with SMTP id h6mr24984636edb.296.1624867519339; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from evledraar (j57224.upc-j.chello.nl. [24.132.57.224]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g12sm8882588edb.23.2021.06.28.01.05.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:05:19 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Felipe Contreras , SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , Chris Torek , Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] receive-pack: skip connectivity checks on delete-only commands Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:00:26 +0200 References: User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye); Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.5.12 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87y2auwh1d.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 28 2021, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > In the case where git-receive-pack(1) receives only commands which > delete references, then per technical specification the client MUST NOT > send a packfile. As a result, we know that no new objects have been > received, which makes it a moot point to check whether all received > objects are fully connected. Is it just per specification, or do we also have assertions/tests for what happens in that case? > [...] > The following tests were executed on linux.git and back up above > expectation: > > Test origin/master HEAD > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 5400.4: empty receive-pack updated:new 178.36(428.22+164.36) 177.62(421.33+164.48) -0.4% > 5400.7: clone receive-pack updated:new 0.10(0.08+0.02) 0.10(0.08+0.02) +0.0% > 5400.9: clone receive-pack updated:main 0.10(0.08+0.02) 0.11(0.08+0.02) +10.0% > 5400.11: clone receive-pack main~10:main 0.15(0.11+0.04) 0.15(0.10+0.05) +0.0% > 5400.13: clone receive-pack :main 0.01(0.00+0.01) 0.01(0.01+0.00) +0.0% > 5400.16: clone_bitmap receive-pack updated:new 0.10(0.07+0.02) 0.09(0.06+0.02) -10.0% > 5400.18: clone_bitmap receive-pack updated:main 0.10(0.07+0.02) 0.10(0.08+0.02) +0.0% > 5400.20: clone_bitmap receive-pack main~10:main 0.15(0.11+0.03) 0.15(0.12+0.03) +0.0% > 5400.22: clone_bitmap receive-pack :main 0.02(0.01+0.01) 0.01(0.00+0.00) -50.0% > 5400.25: extrarefs receive-pack updated:new 32.34(20.72+11.86) 32.56(20.82+11.95) +0.7% > 5400.27: extrarefs receive-pack updated:main 32.42(21.02+11.61) 32.52(20.64+12.10) +0.3% > 5400.29: extrarefs receive-pack main~10:main 32.53(20.74+12.01) 32.39(20.63+11.97) -0.4% > 5400.31: extrarefs receive-pack :main 7.13(3.53+3.59) 7.15(3.80+3.34) +0.3% > 5400.34: extrarefs_bitmap receive-pack updated:new 32.55(20.72+12.04) 32.65(20.68+12.18) +0.3% > 5400.36: extrarefs_bitmap receive-pack updated:main 32.50(20.90+11.86) 32.67(20.93+11.94) +0.5% > 5400.38: extrarefs_bitmap receive-pack main~10:main 32.43(20.88+11.75) 32.35(20.68+11.89) -0.2% > 5400.40: extrarefs_bitmap receive-pack :main 7.21(3.58+3.63) 7.18(3.61+3.57) -0.4% We're doing less work so I'd expect to te be faster, but do these tests really back that up? From eyeballing these I can't find a line where the confidence intervals don't overlap, e.g. the +10% regresison is a .10->.11 "regression" with a [+-] 0.02 (so within the error bars) etc, ditto for the -50% improvement. Perhaps the error bars will reduce with a high GIT_PERF_REPEAT_COUNT, or the re-arrangement for keeping things hotter in cache that I suggested in 1/3.