From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755638AbcFQPfd (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:35:33 -0400 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:62675 "EHLO mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932758AbcFQPfc (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:35:32 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,484,1459807200"; d="scan'208";a="181644439" Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:35:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" cc: Julia Lawall , Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr, nicolas.palix@imag.fr, mmarek@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, markivx@codeaurora.org, stephen.boyd@linaro.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, broonie@kernel.org, ming.lei@canonical.com, tiwai@suse.de, johannes@sipsolutions.net, chunkeey@googlemail.com, hauke@hauke-m.de, jwboyer@fedoraproject.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, jslaby@suse.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] scripts: add glimpse.sh for indexing the kernel In-Reply-To: <20160617151052.GN11948@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <1466116292-21843-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <1466116292-21843-5-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160617151052.GN11948@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:44:26AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > I'm not sure that this is worth it. It adds a dependency on a tool that > > seems not to be well maintained. In terms of Coccinelle, I'm not sure > > that it gives a big benefit. > > > > Attached is a graph showing the file selection time for Coccinelle for a > > selection of fairly complex semantic patches. Coccigrep is just a > > line-by-line regexp search implemented in ocaml, gitgrep uses git grep. > > In most cases, glimpse is clearly faster. > > > > On the other hand, it seems that glimpse often selects more files. > > Sometimes a few more, eg 16 vs 14, and sometimes quite a lot more, eg 538 > > vs 236. I suspect that this is because glimpse considers _ to be a space, > > and thus it can have many false positives. There are, however, a few > > cases where glimpse also selects fewer files. > > > > The file processing time (ie parsing the file, searching for, matches of > > the semantic patch in the file, and performing the transformation) is > > normally much higher than the file selection time. > > > > So it seems that git grep is currently a better option for the kernel. > > Great, thanks, consider this patch dropped, do we want the heuristics > for the cache index in place though or should I drop that as well ? I assume you mean this patch: [PATCH v2 3/8] coccicheck: add indexing enhancement options I think it should be dropped. It adds complexity and git grep works pretty well. If people want to use something else, they can use SPARGS, or a .cocciconfig file, eg: [spatch] options = --use-glimpse julia From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: julia.lawall@lip6.fr (Julia Lawall) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:35:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Cocci] [PATCH v2 4/8] scripts: add glimpse.sh for indexing the kernel In-Reply-To: <20160617151052.GN11948@wotan.suse.de> References: <1466116292-21843-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <1466116292-21843-5-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160617151052.GN11948@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:44:26AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > I'm not sure that this is worth it. It adds a dependency on a tool that > > seems not to be well maintained. In terms of Coccinelle, I'm not sure > > that it gives a big benefit. > > > > Attached is a graph showing the file selection time for Coccinelle for a > > selection of fairly complex semantic patches. Coccigrep is just a > > line-by-line regexp search implemented in ocaml, gitgrep uses git grep. > > In most cases, glimpse is clearly faster. > > > > On the other hand, it seems that glimpse often selects more files. > > Sometimes a few more, eg 16 vs 14, and sometimes quite a lot more, eg 538 > > vs 236. I suspect that this is because glimpse considers _ to be a space, > > and thus it can have many false positives. There are, however, a few > > cases where glimpse also selects fewer files. > > > > The file processing time (ie parsing the file, searching for, matches of > > the semantic patch in the file, and performing the transformation) is > > normally much higher than the file selection time. > > > > So it seems that git grep is currently a better option for the kernel. > > Great, thanks, consider this patch dropped, do we want the heuristics > for the cache index in place though or should I drop that as well ? I assume you mean this patch: [PATCH v2 3/8] coccicheck: add indexing enhancement options I think it should be dropped. It adds complexity and git grep works pretty well. If people want to use something else, they can use SPARGS, or a .cocciconfig file, eg: [spatch] options = --use-glimpse julia