Re: [PATCH] hash-object: don't pointlessly zlib compress without -w
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 01:32:13 -0400
- From: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] hash-object: don't pointlessly zlib compress without -w
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:29:32AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> That added in 568508e765 ("bulk-checkin: replace fast-import based
> implementation", 2011-10-28) would compress the file with zlib, but
> was oblivious as to whether the content would actually be written out
> to disk, which isn't the case unless hash-object is called with the
> "-w" option.
Yeah, this seems like an obvious and easy improvement. I'd guess that
not many people use hash-object without "-w", so nobody ever really
> diff --git a/bulk-checkin.c b/bulk-checkin.c
> index 39ee7d6107..a26126ee76 100644
> --- a/bulk-checkin.c
> +++ b/bulk-checkin.c
> @@ -105,8 +105,9 @@ static int stream_to_pack(struct bulk_checkin_state *state,
> int status = Z_OK;
> int write_object = (flags & HASH_WRITE_OBJECT);
> off_t offset = 0;
> + int level = write_object ? pack_compression_level : Z_NO_COMPRESSION;
> - git_deflate_init(&s, pack_compression_level);
> + git_deflate_init(&s, level);
Hmm. It really seems like if we're not writing, that we could avoid this
whole pack-encoding business altogether, and just stream the contents
through the hash, no matter the size. E.g., we're paying extra here to
compute a pack crc32 that nobody cares about, not to mention the zlib
That said, this is just not that common a case, and you've regained the
vast majority of the performance with this simple change. So it may not
be worth pursuing further.
> +test_lazy_prereq SHA1SUM_AND_SANE_DD_AND_URANDOM '
> + >empty &&
> + sha1sum empty >empty.sha1sum &&
> + grep -q -w da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 empty.sha1sum &&
> + dd if=/dev/urandom of=random.test bs=1024 count=1 &&
> + stat -c %s random.test >random.size &&
> + grep -q -x 1024 random.size
I don't think this needs to be cryptographically random. You could just
use "test-tool genrandom" instead, which gets rid of the need for dd and
/dev/urandom (and as a bonus, is more deterministic since it's a seeded
> +test_perf 'sha1sum(1) on file.random (for comparison)' '
> + sha1sum file.random
I'm not sure this is worth the prereq it entails. Who really cares how
fast sha1sum is? What we generally care about in the perf suite is how
Git speeds compare. Primarily between versions (to show off
improvements, or find regressions), but sometimes between two builds
(but sadly the perf output is not good at comparing those numbers
I know this sets a baseline, but it feels a bit like apples to oranges.
> +for threshold in 32M 64M
> + for write in '' ' -w'
> + do
> + for literally in ' --literally -t commit' ''
Is this "-t commit" worth it? I guess it proves that --literally is
being used, since we'd choke otherwise. But for a perf test, it seems
like you'd want to change as few variables as possible.
> + test_perf "'git hash-object$write$literally --stdin < <file>' with threshold=$threshold" "
This test title violates our shell style (whitespace after "<"). ;)
(Yes, I know it was probably to avoid "<<").
> + test_perf "'echo <file> | git hash-object$write$literally --stdin-paths' threshold=$threshold" "
> + echo file.random | git -c core.bigFileThreshold=$threshold hash-object$write$literally --stdin-paths
You have to bunch up the option variables in the title to get the
whitespace right. But in the command itself, you can do:
hash-object $write $literally ...
and the shell's whitespace handling will make it work. Maybe worth it to
make the source a bit more readable.