##// END OF EJS Templates
perf: add command for measuring revlog chunk operations...
perf: add command for measuring revlog chunk operations Upcoming commits will teach revlogs to leverage the new compression engine API so that new compression formats can more easily be leveraged in revlogs. We want to be sure this refactoring doesn't regress performance. So this commit introduces "perfrevchunks" to explicitly test performance of reading, decompressing, and recompressing revlog chunks. Here is output when run on the mozilla-unified repo: $ hg perfrevlogchunks -c ! read ! wall 0.346603 comb 0.350000 user 0.340000 sys 0.010000 (best of 28) ! read w/ reused fd ! wall 0.337707 comb 0.340000 user 0.320000 sys 0.020000 (best of 30) ! read batch ! wall 0.013206 comb 0.020000 user 0.000000 sys 0.020000 (best of 221) ! read batch w/ reused fd ! wall 0.013259 comb 0.030000 user 0.010000 sys 0.020000 (best of 222) ! chunk ! wall 1.909939 comb 1.910000 user 1.900000 sys 0.010000 (best of 6) ! chunk batch ! wall 1.750677 comb 1.760000 user 1.740000 sys 0.020000 (best of 6) ! compress ! wall 5.668004 comb 5.670000 user 5.670000 sys 0.000000 (best of 3) $ hg perfrevlogchunks -m ! read ! wall 0.365834 comb 0.370000 user 0.350000 sys 0.020000 (best of 26) ! read w/ reused fd ! wall 0.350160 comb 0.350000 user 0.320000 sys 0.030000 (best of 28) ! read batch ! wall 0.024777 comb 0.020000 user 0.000000 sys 0.020000 (best of 119) ! read batch w/ reused fd ! wall 0.024895 comb 0.030000 user 0.000000 sys 0.030000 (best of 118) ! chunk ! wall 2.514061 comb 2.520000 user 2.480000 sys 0.040000 (best of 4) ! chunk batch ! wall 2.380788 comb 2.380000 user 2.360000 sys 0.020000 (best of 5) ! compress ! wall 9.815297 comb 9.820000 user 9.820000 sys 0.000000 (best of 3) We already see some interesting data, such as how much slower non-batched chunk reading is and that zlib compression appears to be >2x slower than decompression. I didn't have the data when I wrote this commit message, but I ran this on Mozilla's NFS-based Mercurial server and the time for reading with a reused file descriptor was faster. So I think it is worth testing both with and without file descriptor reuse so we can make informed decisions about recycling file descriptors.

File last commit:

r23749:a387b039 default
r30451:94ca0e13 default
Show More
test-patch-offset.t
82 lines | 1.6 KiB | text/troff | Tads3Lexer
$ cat > writepatterns.py <<EOF
> import sys
>
> path = sys.argv[1]
> patterns = sys.argv[2:]
>
> fp = file(path, 'wb')
> for pattern in patterns:
> count = int(pattern[0:-1])
> char = pattern[-1] + '\n'
> fp.write(char*count)
> fp.close()
> EOF
prepare repo
$ hg init a
$ cd a
These initial lines of Xs were not in the original file used to generate
the patch. So all the patch hunks need to be applied to a constant offset
within this file. If the offset isn't tracked then the hunks can be
applied to the wrong lines of this file.
$ python ../writepatterns.py a 34X 10A 1B 10A 1C 10A 1B 10A 1D 10A 1B 10A 1E 10A 1B 10A
$ hg commit -Am adda
adding a
This is a cleaner patch generated via diff
In this case it reproduces the problem when
the output of hg export does not
import patch
$ hg import -v -m 'b' -d '2 0' - <<EOF
> --- a/a 2009-12-08 19:26:17.000000000 -0800
> +++ b/a 2009-12-08 19:26:17.000000000 -0800
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
> A
> A
> B
> -A
> +a
> A
> A
> A
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
> A
> A
> B
> -A
> +a
> A
> A
> A
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
> A
> A
> B
> -A
> +a
> A
> A
> A
> EOF
applying patch from stdin
patching file a
Hunk #1 succeeded at 43 (offset 34 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 87 (offset 34 lines).
Hunk #3 succeeded at 109 (offset 34 lines).
committing files:
a
committing manifest
committing changelog
created 189885cecb41
compare imported changes against reference file
$ python ../writepatterns.py aref 34X 10A 1B 1a 9A 1C 10A 1B 10A 1D 10A 1B 1a 9A 1E 10A 1B 1a 9A
$ diff aref a
$ cd ..