From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: [PATCH] refs: drop "clear packed-refs while locked" assertion
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 06:22:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171208112222.GA6094@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
This patch fixes a regression in v2.14.0. It's actually fixed already in
v2.15.0 because all of the packed-ref code there was rewritten. So
there's no point in applying this on "master" or even "maint". But I
figured it was worth sharing here in case somebody else runs across it,
and in case we ever do a v2.14.4 release.
-- >8 --
In clear_packed_ref_cache(), we assert that we're not
currently holding the packed-refs lock. But in each of the
three code paths that can hit this, the assertion is either
a noop or actively does the wrong thing:
1. in rollback_packed_refs(), we will have just released
the lock before calling the function, and so the
assertion can never trigger.
2. get_packed_ref_cache() can reach this assertion via
validate_packed_ref_cache(). But it calls the validate
function only when it knows that we're not holding the
lock, so again, the assertion can never trigger.
3. lock_packed_refs() also calls validate_packed_ref_cache().
In this case we're _always_ holding the lock, which
means any time the validate function has to clear the
cache, we'll trigger this assertion and die.
This doesn't happen often in practice because the
validate function clears the cache only if we find that
somebody else has racily rewritten the packed-refs file
between the time we read it and the time we took the lock.
So most of the time we don't reach the assertion at all
(nobody has racily written the file so there's no need
to clear the cache). And when we do, it is not actually
indicative of a bug; clearing the cache while holding
the lock is the right thing to do here.
This final case is relatively new, being triggerd by the
extra validation added in fed6ebebf1 (lock_packed_refs():
fix cache validity check, 2017-06-12).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
refs/files-backend.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/refs/files-backend.c b/refs/files-backend.c
index f21a954ce7..dd41e1d382 100644
--- a/refs/files-backend.c
+++ b/refs/files-backend.c
@@ -99,8 +99,6 @@ static void clear_packed_ref_cache(struct files_ref_store *refs)
if (refs->packed) {
struct packed_ref_cache *packed_refs = refs->packed;
- if (is_lock_file_locked(&refs->packed_refs_lock))
- die("BUG: packed-ref cache cleared while locked");
refs->packed = NULL;
release_packed_ref_cache(packed_refs);
}
--
2.15.1.659.g8bd2eae3ea
next reply other threads:[~2017-12-08 11:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-08 11:22 Jeff King [this message]
2018-01-01 15:26 ` [PATCH] refs: drop "clear packed-refs while locked" assertion Michael Haggerty
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171208112222.GA6094@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).