From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, stolee@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cache-tree: do not lazy-fetch merge tree
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 18:21:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190909222101.GB31319@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqef0pi3im.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:05:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > Isn't that what is going on? I thought I dug up the original that
> > introduced the has_object_file() call to this codepath to make sure
> > we understand why we make the check (and I expected the person who
> > is proposing this change to do the same and record the finding in
> > the proposed log message).
> >
> > I am running out of time today, and will revisit later this week
> > (I'll be down for at least two days starting tomorrow, by the way).
>
> Here is what I came up with.
>
> The cache-tree datastructure is used to speed up the comparison
> between the HEAD and the index, and when the index is updated by
> a cherry-pick (for example), a tree object that would represent
> the paths in the index in a directory is constructed in-core, to
> see if such a tree object exists already in the object store.
>
> When the lazy-fetch mechanism was introduced, we converted this
> "does the tree exist?" check into an "if it does not, and if we
> lazily cloned, see if the remote has it" call by mistake. Since
> the whole point of this check is to repair the cache-tree by
> recording an already existing tree object opportunistically, we
> shouldn't even try to fetch one from the remote.
>
> Pass the OBJECT_INFO_SKIP_FETCH_OBJECT flag to make sure we only
> check for existence in the local object store without triggering the
> lazy fetch mechanism.
As a third-party observer, that explanation makes sense to me.
I wondered also if this means we should be using OBJECT_INFO_QUICK.
I.e., do we expect to see a "miss" here often, forcing us to re-scan the
packed directory?
Reading dd0c34c46b (cache-tree: protect against "git prune".,
2006-04-24), I think the answer is "no".
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-09 22:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-03 19:42 [PATCH] cache-tree: do not lazy-fetch merge tree Jonathan Tan
2019-09-04 1:37 ` Derrick Stolee
2019-09-04 22:35 ` Jonathan Tan
2019-09-04 23:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-09-09 19:01 ` [PATCH v2] " Jonathan Tan
2019-09-09 19:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-09-09 21:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-09-09 22:21 ` Jeff King [this message]
2019-09-10 1:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-09-10 18:15 ` Jonathan Tan
2019-09-10 12:49 ` SZEDER Gábor
2019-09-10 18:19 ` Jonathan Tan
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=20190909222101.GB31319@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=stolee@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).