git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: "SZEDER Gábor" <szeder.dev@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, jonathantanmy@google.com,
	jrnieder@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rev-list: exclude promisor objects at walk time
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:26:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190419202652.GU60888@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190413053434.GA31884@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On 2019.04.13 01:34, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 03:38:47PM -0700, Josh Steadmon wrote:
> 
> > > > Thank you for catching this. I haven't yet figured out the cause. I will
> > > > look into this more tomorrow and then send a V4 once I've fixed it.
> > > 
> > > I'm concerned that this is a sign that the approach I suggested does not
> > > actually work everywhere. I.e., could this be a case where we have some
> > > non-promisor object that points to a sub-object that is reachable from
> > > the promisor pack, but not a direct tip? Before your patch we'd consider
> > > that sub-object a promisor (because we enumerate all of the graph that
> > > we do have and mark each such object), but afterwards we would not.
> > > 
> > > And I wonder if that confuses pack-objects. Though I think it would
> > > confuse it in the _opposite_ direction. I.e., using
> > > --exclude-promisor-objects would count such an object as not-a-promisor
> > > and would be more inclined to include it in the new pack.
> > > 
> > > It is curious that this only turns up with GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH=1, too.
> > > It seems like any such problem ought to be independent of that.
> > > 
> > > Puzzling...
> > 
> > Do you think this justifies going back to the V1 approach (only checking
> > presence of objects pointed to by refs when doing a partial clone)?
> 
> Yes, I think it might. Especially coupled with your other report that
> the V1 approach is 500ms compared to several seconds for this one. Which
> I'd guess is probably because we actually parse the ref tip objects in
> rev-list, whereas your V1 just skipped that step entirely (which is
> perfectly fine for a clone, as we'd have just hashed the objects via
> index-pack anyway).
> 
> It might be interesting to know if the problem is indeed insurmountable
> with the V3 approach here, or if it's simply another bug. But diving
> into it is going to be rather tricky, and I am not volunteering to do
> it. :) So if you want to punt and go back to the more clearly correct V1
> approach, I can live with that. We can always revisit this approach
> later (it wouldn't be necessary for the clone case after your V1, but in
> theory it could be helping other cases, too).
> 
> -Peff

I have not made any progress in figuring out the repack + commit-graph
failure, so I will resend V1.

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-19 20:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-03 17:27 [PATCH] clone: do faster object check for partial clones Josh Steadmon
2019-04-03 18:58 ` Jonathan Tan
2019-04-03 19:41 ` Jeff King
2019-04-03 20:57   ` Jonathan Tan
2019-04-04  0:21     ` Josh Steadmon
2019-04-04  1:33     ` Jeff King
2019-04-04 22:53 ` [PATCH v2] rev-list: exclude promisor objects at walk time Josh Steadmon
2019-04-04 23:08   ` Jeff King
2019-04-04 23:47     ` Josh Steadmon
2019-04-05  0:00       ` Jeff King
2019-04-05  0:09         ` Josh Steadmon
2019-04-08 20:59           ` Josh Steadmon
2019-04-08 21:06 ` [PATCH v3] " Josh Steadmon
2019-04-08 22:23   ` Christian Couder
2019-04-08 23:12     ` Josh Steadmon
2019-04-09 15:14   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-04-09 15:15     ` Jeff King
2019-04-09 15:43       ` Junio C Hamano
2019-04-09 16:35         ` Josh Steadmon
2019-04-09 18:04   ` SZEDER Gábor
2019-04-09 23:42     ` Josh Steadmon
2019-04-11  4:06       ` Jeff King
2019-04-12 22:38         ` Josh Steadmon
2019-04-13  5:34           ` Jeff King
2019-04-19 20:26             ` Josh Steadmon [this message]
2019-04-19 21:00 ` [PATCH v4] clone: do faster object check for partial clones Josh Steadmon
2019-04-22 21:31   ` Jeff King

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=20190419202652.GU60888@google.com \
    --to=steadmon@google.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
    --cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=szeder.dev@gmail.com \
    /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).