connected: do not sort input revisions
In order to compute whether objects reachable from a set of tips are all
connected, we do a revision walk with these tips as positive references
and `--not --all`. `--not --all` will cause the revision walk to load
all preexisting references as uninteresting, which can be very expensive
in repositories with many references.
Benchmarking the git-rev-list(1) command highlights that by far the most
expensive single phase is initial sorting of the input revisions: after
all references have been loaded, we first sort commits by author date.
In a real-world repository with about 2.2 million references, it makes
up about 40% of the total runtime of git-rev-list(1).
Ultimately, the connectivity check shouldn't really bother about the
order of input revisions at all. We only care whether we can actually
walk all objects until we hit the cut-off point. So sorting the input is
a complete waste of time.
Introduce a new "--unsorted-input" flag to git-rev-list(1) which will
cause it to not sort the commits and adjust the connectivity check to
always pass the flag. This results in the following speedups, executed
in a clone of gitlab-org/gitlab [1]:
Benchmark #1: git rev-list --objects --quiet --not --all --not $(cat newrev)
Time (mean ± σ): 7.639 s ± 0.065 s [User: 7.304 s, System: 0.335 s]
Range (min … max): 7.543 s … 7.742 s 10 runs
Benchmark #2: git rev-list --unsorted-input --objects --quiet --not --all --not $newrev
Time (mean ± σ): 4.995 s ± 0.044 s [User: 4.657 s, System: 0.337 s]
Range (min … max): 4.909 s … 5.048 s 10 runs
Summary
'git rev-list --unsorted-input --objects --quiet --not --all --not $(cat newrev)' ran
1.53 ± 0.02 times faster than 'git rev-list --objects --quiet --not --all --not $newrev'
[1]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab.git. Note that not all refs
are visible to clients.
Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This commit is contained in:
committed by
Junio C Hamano
parent
29ef1f27fe
commit
f45022dc2f
@ -2256,6 +2256,10 @@ static int handle_revision_opt(struct rev_info *revs, int argc, const char **arg
|
||||
} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--author-date-order")) {
|
||||
revs->sort_order = REV_SORT_BY_AUTHOR_DATE;
|
||||
revs->topo_order = 1;
|
||||
} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--unsorted-input")) {
|
||||
if (revs->no_walk)
|
||||
die(_("--unsorted-input is incompatible with --no-walk"));
|
||||
revs->unsorted_input = 1;
|
||||
} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--early-output")) {
|
||||
revs->early_output = 100;
|
||||
revs->topo_order = 1;
|
||||
@ -2651,8 +2655,13 @@ static int handle_revision_pseudo_opt(const char *submodule,
|
||||
} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--not")) {
|
||||
*flags ^= UNINTERESTING | BOTTOM;
|
||||
} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--no-walk")) {
|
||||
if (!revs->no_walk && revs->unsorted_input)
|
||||
die(_("--no-walk is incompatible with --unsorted-input"));
|
||||
revs->no_walk = 1;
|
||||
} else if (skip_prefix(arg, "--no-walk=", &optarg)) {
|
||||
if (!revs->no_walk && revs->unsorted_input)
|
||||
die(_("--no-walk is incompatible with --unsorted-input"));
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Detached form ("--no-walk X" as opposed to "--no-walk=X")
|
||||
* not allowed, since the argument is optional.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user