Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:33:47 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r190514 - head/sys/conf Message-ID: <4A8583DB.1090507@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200908141004.09354.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200903282317.n2SNHIjI015202@svn.freebsd.org> <4A846206.7010803@FreeBSD.org> <200908141004.09354.jhb@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday 13 August 2009 2:57:10 pm Doug Barton wrote: >> Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >>> Author: bz >>> Date: Sat Mar 28 23:17:18 2009 >>> New Revision: 190514 >>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/190514 >>> >>> Log: >>> For kernel builds reduce the impact of svnversion, just scanning >>> src/sys and not the entire src/ tree. Performance here I think is a red herring. This is really about correctness: The SVN revision of usr.bin/ls simply isn't relevant for the kernel build. >> Also, what problem are we really trying to solve here? With a >> populated cache it takes on average 5 seconds to run all of src, and >> just under 1 to do only sys. Is 4 seconds really that important to >> save? With a dry cache I'm sure it takes a little longer, but has >> anyone actually measured this? I just measured over 30 seconds for svnversion against /usr/src and around 6 for /usr/src/sys (both with cold cache). > It takes far longer than 5 seconds here against a local SVN repo over NFS. The repo has nothing to do with it. svnversion doesn't talk to the repo. It only examines the working copy. Timhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A8583DB.1090507>