From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general Subject: Re: Emacs repository benchmark: bzr and git Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:04:04 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20080318154316.GA6242@mithlond.arda.local> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205874329 4600 80.91.229.12 (18 Mar 2008 21:05:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:05:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bazaar@lists.canonical.com, tlikonen@iki.fi, Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: dhruva Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 18 22:05:57 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Jbizb-0005Du-Ht for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:05:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbiz1-000201-Lu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:04:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbiyy-0001zJ-0Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:04:28 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbiyx-0001z1-HQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:04:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbiyx-0001yt-Da for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:04:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout7.012.net.il ([84.95.2.19]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbiyx-0005kk-4V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:04:27 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([83.130.216.90]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0JXY00D1E1Q81UF0@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:46:57 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (1203?) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:92930 gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general:38942 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:03:46 +0530 > From: dhruva > Cc: bazaar@lists.canonical.com, Teemu Likonen , > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > dhruva@dhruva-lxp ~/stub/repo/bzr/emacs/trunk > $ time bzr log -l 10 --short > :NUL > > real 0m18.421s > user 0m0.047s > sys 0m0.031s > > dhruva@dhruva-lxp ~/stub/repo/bzr/emacs/trunk > $ time bzr log -l 10 --short > :NUL > > real 0m18.375s > user 0m0.015s > sys 0m0.000s > > > Even with 3 runs, I do not see any noticeable change in performance. I > am running the tests on emacs repo. I am running all tests on M$-XP > box (lenovo T61 series with Intel Centrino Pro, 1Gb RAM). > > How do I get rid of cache if I have to restart the tests? I plan to > analyze the '--lsprof' output to see if there is different code path > and the so called hot/cold cache making any difference. I'm just guessing, but judging from your results, it doesn't look like the times are I/O-bound, and so the cold/hot cache issue is not an important factor with bzr, at least on MS-Windows. With I/O-bound operations, there's a significant difference (factors of 5 to 20) between the first and the second invocations, which is not the case here. Also, I'm guessing that the user/system times are irrelevant because bzr invokes subsidiary processes that do the actual work (and the Windows version of system calls used by `time' does not cover time spent in child processes, unlike the Posix system calls). That is the only way I can understand the startling difference between the elapsed time and the sum of system+user time. So it's hard to tell where does bzr spend most of its time from these numbers.