kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Jeff King	4cf2143e02	pack-objects: break delta cycles before delta-search phase We do not allow cycles in the delta graph of a pack (i.e., A is a delta of B which is a delta of A) for the obvious reason that you cannot actually access any of the objects in such a case. There's a last-ditch attempt to notice cycles during the write phase, during which we issue a warning to the user and write one of the objects out in full. However, this is "last-ditch" for two reasons: 1. By this time, it's too late to find another delta for the object, so the resulting pack is larger than it otherwise could be. 2. The warning is there because this is something that _shouldn't_ ever happen. If it does, then either: a. a pack we are reusing deltas from had its own cycle b. we are reusing deltas from multiple packs, and we found a cycle among them (i.e., A is a delta of B in one pack, but B is a delta of A in another, and we choose to use both deltas). c. there is a bug in the delta-search code So this code serves as a final check that none of these things has happened, warns the user, and prevents us from writing a bogus pack. Right now, (2b) should never happen because of the static ordering of packs in want_object_in_pack(). If two objects have a delta relationship, then they must be in the same pack, and therefore we will find them from that same pack. However, a future patch would like to change that static ordering, which will make (2b) a common occurrence. In preparation, we should be able to handle those kinds of cycles better. This patch does by introducing a cycle-breaking step during the get_object_details() phase, when we are deciding which deltas can be reused. That gives us the chance to feed the objects into the delta search as if the cycle did not exist. We'll leave the detection and warning in the write_object() phase in place, as it still serves as a check for case (2c). This does mean we will stop warning for (2a). That case is caused by bogus input packs, and we ideally would warn the user about it. However, since those cycles show up after picking reusable deltas, they look the same as (2b) to us; our new code will break the cycles early and the last-ditch check will never see them. We could do analysis on any cycles that we find to distinguish the two cases (i.e., it is a bogus pack if and only if every delta in the cycle is in the same pack), but we don't need to. If there is a cycle inside a pack, we'll run into problems not only reusing the delta, but accessing the object data at all. So when we try to dig up the actual size of the object, we'll hit that same cycle and kick in our usual complain-and-try-another-source code. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	9 years ago
Vicent Marti	7cc8f97108	pack-objects: implement bitmap writing This commit extends more the functionality of `pack-objects` by allowing it to write out a `.bitmap` index next to any written packs, together with the `.idx` index that currently gets written. If bitmap writing is enabled for a given repository (either by calling `pack-objects` with the `--write-bitmap-index` flag or by having `pack.writebitmaps` set to `true` in the config) and pack-objects is writing a packfile that would normally be indexed (i.e. not piping to stdout), we will attempt to write the corresponding bitmap index for the packfile. Bitmap index writing happens after the packfile and its index has been successfully written to disk (`finish_tmp_packfile`). The process is performed in several steps: 1. `bitmap_writer_set_checksum`: this call stores the partial checksum for the packfile being written; the checksum will be written in the resulting bitmap index to verify its integrity 2. `bitmap_writer_build_type_index`: this call uses the array of `struct object_entry` that has just been sorted when writing out the actual packfile index to disk to generate 4 type-index bitmaps (one for each object type). These bitmaps have their nth bit set if the given object is of the bitmap's type. E.g. the nth bit of the Commits bitmap will be 1 if the nth object in the packfile index is a commit. This is a very cheap operation because the bitmap writing code has access to the metadata stored in the `struct object_entry` array, and hence the real type for each object in the packfile. 3. `bitmap_writer_reuse_bitmaps`: if there exists an existing bitmap index for one of the packfiles we're trying to repack, this call will efficiently rebuild the existing bitmaps so they can be reused on the new index. All the existing bitmaps will be stored in a `reuse` hash table, and the commit selection phase will prioritize these when selecting, as they can be written directly to the new index without having to perform a revision walk to fill the bitmap. This can greatly speed up the repack of a repository that already has bitmaps. 4. `bitmap_writer_select_commits`: if bitmap writing is enabled for a given `pack-objects` run, the sequence of commits generated during the Counting Objects phase will be stored in an array. We then use that array to build up the list of selected commits. Writing a bitmap in the index for each object in the repository would be cost-prohibitive, so we use a simple heuristic to pick the commits that will be indexed with bitmaps. The current heuristics are a simplified version of JGit's original implementation. We select a higher density of commits depending on their age: the 100 most recent commits are always selected, after that we pick 1 commit of each 100, and the gap increases as the commits grow older. On top of that, we make sure that every single branch that has not been merged (all the tips that would be required from a clone) gets their own bitmap, and when selecting commits between a gap, we tend to prioritize the commit with the most parents. Do note that there is no right/wrong way to perform commit selection; different selection algorithms will result in different commits being selected, but there's no such thing as "missing a commit". The bitmap walker algorithm implemented in `prepare_bitmap_walk` is able to adapt to missing bitmaps by performing manual walks that complete the bitmap: the ideal selection algorithm, however, would select the commits that are more likely to be used as roots for a walk in the future (e.g. the tips of each branch, and so on) to ensure a bitmap for them is always available. 5. `bitmap_writer_build`: this is the computationally expensive part of bitmap generation. Based on the list of commits that were selected in the previous step, we perform several incremental walks to generate the bitmap for each commit. The walks begin from the oldest commit, and are built up incrementally for each branch. E.g. consider this dag where A, B, C, D, E, F are the selected commits, and a, b, c, e are a chunk of simplified history that will not receive bitmaps. A---a---B--b--C--c--D \ E--e--F We start by building the bitmap for A, using A as the root for a revision walk and marking all the objects that are reachable until the walk is over. Once this bitmap is stored, we reuse the bitmap walker to perform the walk for B, assuming that once we reach A again, the walk will be terminated because A has already been SEEN on the previous walk. This process is repeated for C, and D, but when we try to generate the bitmaps for E, we can reuse neither the current walk nor the bitmap we have generated so far. What we do now is resetting both the walk and clearing the bitmap, and performing the walk from scratch using E as the origin. This new walk, however, does not need to be completed. Once we hit B, we can lookup the bitmap we have already stored for that commit and OR it with the existing bitmap we've composed so far, allowing us to limit the walk early. After all the bitmaps have been generated, another iteration through the list of commits is performed to find the best XOR offsets for compression before writing them to disk. Because of the incremental nature of these bitmaps, XORing one of them with its predecesor results in a minimal "bitmap delta" most of the time. We can write this delta to the on-disk bitmap index, and then re-compose the original bitmaps by XORing them again when loaded. This is a phase very similar to pack-object's `find_delta` (using bitmaps instead of objects, of course), except the heuristics have been greatly simplified: we only check the 10 bitmaps before any given one to find best compressing one. This gives good results in practice, because there is locality in the ordering of the objects (and therefore bitmaps) in the packfile. 6. `bitmap_writer_finish`: the last step in the process is serializing to disk all the bitmap data that has been generated in the two previous steps. The bitmap is written to a tmp file and then moved atomically to its final destination, using the same process as `pack-write.c:write_idx_file`. Signed-off-by: Vicent Marti <tanoku@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	11 years ago
Vicent Marti	68fb36eb92	pack-objects: factor out name_hash As the pack-objects system grows beyond the single pack-objects.c file, more parts (like the soon-to-exist bitmap code) will need to compute hashes for matching deltas. Factor out name_hash to make it available to other files. Signed-off-by: Vicent Marti <tanoku@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	11 years ago
Vicent Marti	2834bc27c1	pack-objects: refactor the packing list The hash table that stores the packing list for a given `pack-objects` run was tightly coupled to the pack-objects code. In this commit, we refactor the hash table and the underlying storage array into a `packing_data` struct. The functionality for accessing and adding entries to the packing list is hence accessible from other parts of Git besides the `pack-objects` builtin. This refactoring is a requirement for further patches in this series that will require accessing the commit packing list from outside of `pack-objects`. The hash table implementation has been minimally altered: we now use table sizes which are always a power of two, to ensure a uniform index distribution in the array. Signed-off-by: Vicent Marti <tanoku@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	11 years ago