Ben Peart <peart...@gmail.com> writes:

> From: Ben Peart <benpe...@microsoft.com>
>
> During an "add", a call is made to run_diff_files() which calls
> check_remove() for each index-entry.  The preload_index() code
> distributes some of the costs across multiple threads.

Nice.  I peeked around and noticed that we already do this in
builtin_diff_index() before running run_diff_index() when !cached,
and builtin_diff_files(), of course.

> Because the files checked are restricted to pathspec, adding individual
> files makes no measurable impact but on a Windows repo with ~200K files,
> 'git add .' drops from 6.3 seconds to 3.3 seconds for a 47% savings.

;-)

> diff --git a/builtin/add.c b/builtin/add.c
> index ad49806ebf..f65c172299 100644
> --- a/builtin/add.c
> +++ b/builtin/add.c
> @@ -445,11 +445,6 @@ int cmd_add(int argc, const char **argv, const char 
> *prefix)
>               return 0;
>       }
>  
> -     if (read_cache() < 0)
> -             die(_("index file corrupt"));
> -
> -     die_in_unpopulated_submodule(&the_index, prefix);
> -
>       /*
>        * Check the "pathspec '%s' did not match any files" block
>        * below before enabling new magic.

It is not explained why this is not a mere s/read_cache/&_preload/
in the log message.  I can see it is because you wanted to make the
pathspec available to preload to further cut down the preloaded
paths, and I do not think it has any unintended (negatie) side
effect to parse the pathspec before populating the in-core index,
but that would have been a good thing to mention in the proposed log
message.

> @@ -459,6 +454,10 @@ int cmd_add(int argc, const char **argv, const char 
> *prefix)
>                      PATHSPEC_SYMLINK_LEADING_PATH,
>                      prefix, argv);
>  
> +     if (read_cache_preload(&pathspec) < 0)
> +             die(_("index file corrupt"));
> +
> +     die_in_unpopulated_submodule(&the_index, prefix);
>       die_path_inside_submodule(&the_index, &pathspec);
>  
>       if (add_new_files) {
>
> base-commit: 4ede3d42dfb57f9a41ac96a1f216c62eb7566cc2

Reply via email to