Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] gc: remove redundant check for gc_auto_threshold




Brandon Casey <drafnel@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> ...  Again, I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm not
> sure this change actually improves the code.

Yeah, in the context of the current caller, this is a safe change
that does not break anybody and reduces the number of instructions
executed in this codepath.  A mistaken caller may be added in the
future that fails to check auto-threashold beforehand, but that
won't lead to anything bad like looping for a large number of times,
so as long as the API contract into this helper function is clear
that callers are responsible to check beforehand, it is still not
too bad.

So, I'd throw this into "Meh - I won't regret applying it, but it is
not the end of the world if I forget to apply it, either" pile.

I _think_ a change that actually improves the code would be to
restructure so that there is a helper that is responsible for
guestimating the number of loose objects, and another that uses the
helper to see if there are too many loose objects.  The latter is
the only one tha needs to know about auto-threashold.  But we are
not in immdiate need for such a clean-up, I guess, unless somebody
is actively looking into revamping how auto-gc works and doing a
preparatory clean-up.