From: Thomas Gummerer <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Duy Nguyen <email@example.com> Cc: Git Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Thomas Rast <email@example.com>, Michael Haggerty <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Junio C Hamano <email@example.com>, Robin Rosenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/22] read-cache: add index reading api Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:37:17 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8CtOWjpxKuNhQXYjPAv8MU0U6yTBEuQeqm0kxqVne6NjQ@mail.gmail.com> Duy Nguyen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Gummerer <email@example.com> wrote: >> Duy Nguyen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >>> Putting filter_opts in index_state feels like a bad design. Iterator >>> information should be separated from the iterated object, so that two >>> callers can walk through the same index without stepping on each other >>> (I'm not talking about multithreading, a caller may walk a bit, then >>> the other caller starts walking, then the former caller resumes >>> walking again in a call chain). >> >> Yes, you're right. We need the filter_opts to see what part of the >> index has been loaded  and which part has been skipped, but it >> shouldn't be used for filtering in the for_each_index_entry function. >> >> I think there should be two versions of the for_each_index_entry >> function then, where the for_each_index_entry function would behave the >> same way as the for_each_index_entry_filtered function with the >> filter_opts parameter set to NULL: >> for_each_index_entry_filtered(struct index_state *, each_cache_entry_fn, void *cb_data, struct filter_opts *) >> for_each_index_entry(struct index_state *, each_cache_entry_fn, void *cb_data) >> >> Both of them then should call index_change_filter_opts to make sure all >> the entries that are needed are loaded in the in-memory format. >> >> Does that make sense? > > Hmm.. I was confused actually (documentation on the api would help > greatly). If you already filter at load time, I don't think you need > to match again. The caller asked for filter and it should know what's > in there so for_each_index_entry just goes through all entries without > extra match_pathspec. Or is that what next_index_entry for? > match_pathspec function could be expensive when glob is involved. If > the caller wants extra matching, it could do inside the callback > function. Yes, a documentation would be good. I'll try to write something better later today, when I have some more time. In the meantime I'll just outline what the functions do here shortly: read_index_filtered(opts): This method behaves differently for index-v2 and index-v5. For index-v2 it simply reads the whole index as read_cache() does, so we are sure we don't have to reload anything if the user wants a different filter. For index-v5 it creates an adjusted pathspec to and reads all directories that are matched by them. get_index_entry_by_name(name, namelen, &ce): Returns a cache_entry matched by name via the &ce parameter. If a cache_entry is matched exactly 1 is returned. Name may also be a path, in which case it returns 0 and the first cache_entry in that path. e.g. we have: ... path/file1 .... in the index and name is "path", than it returns 0 and the path/file1 cache_entry. If name is "path/file1" on the other hand it returns 1 and the path/file1 cache_entry. for_each_index_entry(fn, cb_data): Iterates over all cache_entries in the index filtered by filter_opts in the index_state, and executes fn for each of them with the cb_data as callback data. next_index_entry(ce): Returns the cache_entry that follows after ce index_change_filter_opts(opts): For index-v2 it simply changes the filter_opts, so for_each_index_entry uses the changed index_opts. For index-v5 it refreshes the index if the filter_opts have changed. This has some optimization potential, in the case that the opts get stricter (less of the index should be read) it doesn't have to reload anything. I'm not sure what's in the cache, because the whole index is in the cache if the on-disk format is index-v2 and the index is filtered by the adjusted_pathspec if the on-disk format is index-v5. That's what I need the extra match_pathspec for. But yes, that could also be left to the caller. Hope that makes it a little clearer. > It seems you could change the filter with index_change_filter_opts. In > v5 the index will be reloaded. What happens when some index entries > area already modified? Do we start to have read-only index "views" and > one read-write view? If partial views are always read-only, perhaps we > just allow the user to create a new index_state (or view) with new > filter and destroy the old one. We don't have to care about changing > or separating filter in that case because the view is the iterator. The read-write part is mostly covered by the next patch (6/22). Before changing the index, the filter_opts always have to be set to NULL, using index_change_filter_opts and therefore use the whole index. This is currently hard to improve, because we always need the whole index when we write it. Changing this only makes sense once we have partial writing too. So in principle the index_change_filter_opts function implements those views. Even with partial writing we have to distinguish if a cache_entry has been added/removed, in which case a full rewrite is necessary or if a cache_entry has simply been modified (it's content changed), in which case we could replace it in place. > I wanted to have a tree-based iterator api, but that seems > incompatible with pre-v5 (or at least adds some overhead on pre-v5 to > rebuild the tree structure). It looks like using pathspec to build a > list of entries, as you did, is a good way to take advantage of > tree-based v5 while maintaining code compatibility with pre-v5. By the > way with tree structure, you could use tree_entry_interesting in > read_index_filtered_v5. I think it's more efficient than > match_pathspec. Yes, that's why I decided to keep the current in-memory format for now. Once an api is in place I think it will be easier to explore the tree-based format, without having to change the format all over the place. Thanks, I will take a look at tree_entry_interesting later. > I'm still studying the code. Some of what I wrote here may be totally > wrong due to my lack of understanding. I'll get back to you later if I > find something else. > >>  That is only important for the new index-v5 file format, which can >> be loaded partially. The filter_opts could always be set to NULL, >> as the whole index is always loaded anyway. > -- > Duy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-08 13:37 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-07-07 8:11 [PATCH 00/22] Index v5 Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 01/22] t2104: Don't fail for index versions other than  Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 02/22] read-cache: split index file version specific functionality Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 03/22] read-cache: move index v2 specific functions to their own file Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 04/22] read-cache: Re-read index if index file changed Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 05/22] read-cache: add index reading api Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-08 2:01 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-07-08 11:40 ` Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-08 2:19 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-07-08 11:20 ` Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-08 12:45 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-07-08 13:37 ` Thomas Gummerer [this message] 2013-07-08 20:54 ` [PATCH 5.5/22] Add documentation for the index api Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-09 15:42 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-07-09 20:10 ` Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-10 5:28 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-07-11 11:30 ` Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-11 11:42 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-07-11 12:27 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-07-08 16:36 ` [PATCH 05/22] read-cache: add index reading api Junio C Hamano 2013-07-08 20:10 ` Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-08 23:09 ` Junio C Hamano 2013-07-09 20:13 ` Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 06/22] make sure partially read index is not changed Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-08 16:31 ` Junio C Hamano 2013-07-08 18:33 ` Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 07/22] dir.c: use index api Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 08/22] tree.c: " Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 09/22] name-hash.c: " Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 10/22] grep.c: Use " Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 11/22] ls-files.c: use the " Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 12/22] read-cache: make read_blob_data_from_index use " Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 13/22] documentation: add documentation of the index-v5 file format Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-11 10:39 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-07-11 11:39 ` Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-11 11:47 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-07-11 12:26 ` Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-11 12:50 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 14/22] read-cache: make in-memory format aware of stat_crc Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 15/22] read-cache: read index-v5 Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 20:18 ` Eric Sunshine 2013-07-08 11:40 ` Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 16/22] read-cache: read resolve-undo data Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 17/22] read-cache: read cache-tree in index-v5 Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 20:41 ` Eric Sunshine 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 18/22] read-cache: write index-v5 Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 20:43 ` Eric Sunshine 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 19/22] read-cache: write index-v5 cache-tree data Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 20/22] read-cache: write resolve-undo data for index-v5 Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 21/22] update-index.c: rewrite index when index-version is given Thomas Gummerer 2013-07-07 8:12 ` [PATCH 22/22] p0003-index.sh: add perf test for the index formats Thomas Gummerer
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 \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 05/22] read-cache: add index reading api' \ /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
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this 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).