##// END OF EJS Templates
upstream » mercurial-mirror
RSS

Clone from https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg-all

merge: mark file gets as not thread safe (issue5933)...
merge: mark file gets as not thread safe (issue5933) In default installs, this has the effect of disabling the thread-based worker on Windows when manifesting files in the working directory. My measurements have shown that with revlog-based repositories, Mercurial spends a lot of CPU time in revlog code resolving file data. This ends up incurring a lot of context switching across threads and slows down `hg update` operations when going from an empty working directory to the tip of the repo. On mozilla-unified (246,351 files) on an i7-6700K (4+4 CPUs): before: 487s wall after: 360s wall (equivalent to worker.enabled=false) cpus=2: 379s wall Even with only 2 threads, the thread pool is still slower. The introduction of the thread-based worker (02b36e860e0b) states that it resulted in a "~50%" speedup for `hg sparse --enable-profile` and `hg sparse --disable-profile`. This disagrees with my measurement above. I theorize a few reasons for this: 1) Removal of files from the working directory is I/O - not CPU - bound and should benefit from a thread pool (unless I/O is insanely fast and the GIL release is near instantaneous). So tests like `hg sparse --enable-profile` may exercise deletion throughput and aren't good benchmarks for worker tasks that are CPU heavy. 2) The patch was authored by someone at Facebook. The results were likely measured against a repository using remotefilelog. And I believe that revision retrieval during working directory updates with remotefilelog will often use a remote store, thus being I/O and not CPU bound. This probably resulted in an overstated performance gain. Since there appears to be a need to enable the thread-based worker with some stores, I've made the flagging of file gets as thread safe configurable. I've made it experimental because I don't want to formalize a boolean flag for this option and because this attribute is best captured against the store implementation. But we don't have a proper store API for this yet. I'd rather cross this bridge later. It is possible there are revlog-based repositories that do benefit from a thread-based worker. I didn't do very comprehensive testing. If there are, we may want to devise a more proper algorithm for whether to use the thread-based worker, including possibly config options to limit the number of threads to use. But until I see evidence that justifies complexity, simplicity wins. Differential Revision: https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3963
Gregory Szorc - - Load All Authors

File last commit:

r30435:b86a448a default
r38755:be498426 default
Show More
LICENSE
27 lines | 1.4 KiB | text/plain | TextLexer
/ contrib / python-zstandard / LICENSE
History | Annotation | Raw |Copy content |Copy permalink
Copyright (c) 2016, Gregory Szorc
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.