Re: [PATCH] t7063: work around FreeBSD's lazy mtime update feature

["Torstem Bögershausen" <tboegi@web.de>]

> Am 30.07.2016 um 15:20 schrieb Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>:
> 
> Let's start with the commit message of [1] from freebsd.git [2]
> 
>    Sync timestamp changes for inodes of special files to disk as late
>    as possible (when the inode is reclaimed).  Temporarily only do
>    this if option UFS_LAZYMOD configured and softupdates aren't
>    enabled.  UFS_LAZYMOD is intentionally left out of
>    /sys/conf/options.
> 
>    This is mainly to avoid almost useless disk i/o on battery powered
>    machines.  It's silly to write to disk (on the next sync or when
>    the inode becomes inactive) just because someone hit a key or
>    something wrote to the screen or /dev/null.
> 
>    PR:             5577 [3]
> 
> The short version of that, in the context of t7063, is that when a
> directory is updated, its mtime may be updated later, not
> immediately. This can be shown with a simple command sequence
> 
>    date; sleep 1; touch abc; rm abc; sleep 10; ls -lTd .
> 
> One would expect that the date shown in `ls` would be one second from
> `date`, but it's 10 seconds later. If we put another `ls -lTd .` in
> front of `sleep 10`, then the date of the last `ls` comes as
> expected. The first `ls` somehow forces mtime to be updated.
> 
> t7063 is really sensitive to directory mtime. When mtime is too "new",
> git code suspects racy timestamps and will not trigger the shortcut in
> untracked cache, in t7063.26 (or t7063.25 before this patch) and
> eventually be detected in t7063.28
> 
> We have two options thanks to this special FreeBSD feature:
> 
> 1) Stop supporting untracked cache on FreeBSD. Skip t7063 entirely
>   when running on FreeBSD
> 
> 2) Work around this problem (using the same 'ls' trick) and continue
>   to support untracked cache on FreeBSD
> 
> I initially wanted to go with 1) because I didn't know the exact
> nature of this feature and feared that it would make untracked cache
> work unreliably, using the cached version when it should not.
> 
> Since the behavior of this thing is clearer now. The picture is not
> that bad. If this indeed happens often, untracked cache would assume
> racy condition more often and _fall back_ to non-untracked cache code
> paths. Which means it may be less effective, but it will not show
> wrong things.
> 
> This patch goes with option 2.
> 
> PS. For those who want to look further in FreeBSD source code, this
> flag is now called IN_LAZYMOD. I can see it's effective in ext2 and
> ufs. zfs is questionable.
> 
> [1] 660e6408e6df99a20dacb070c5e7f9739efdf96d
> [2] git://github.com/freebsd/freebsd.git
> [3] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5577
> 
> Reported-by: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
> ---
> This is only of those commits that commit messages are more important
> than the patch itself. One of the good notes about directory mtime,
> if we start to use it in more places in git.
> 
> t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh | 4 ++++
> t/test-lib.sh                     | 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh b/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
> index a971884..08fc586 100755
> --- a/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
> +++ b/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
> @@ -419,6 +419,10 @@ test_expect_success 'create/modify files, some of which are gitignored' '
>    rm base
> '
> 
> +test_expect_success FREEBSD 'Work around lazy mtime update' '
> +    ls -ld . >/dev/null
> +'
> +

the term FREEBSD may be too generic to point out a single feature
in an OS distributution.
Following your investigations, it may even be possible that
other systems adapt this "feature"?

How about
LAZY_DIR_MTIME_UPDATE
(or similar)