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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A8583DB.1090507>