Re: [PATCH 0/5] Skip 'cache_tree_update()' when 'prime_cache_tree()' is called immediate after

[Victoria Dye <vdye@github.com>]

Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 11/8/2022 5:44 PM, Victoria Dye via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> Following up on a discussion [1] around cache tree refreshes in 'git reset',
>> this series updates callers of 'unpack_trees()' to skip its internal
>> invocation of 'cache_tree_update()' when 'prime_cache_tree()' is called
>> immediately after 'unpack_trees()'. 'cache_tree_update()' can be an
>> expensive operation, and it is redundant when 'prime_cache_tree()' clears
>> and rebuilds the cache tree from scratch immediately after.
>>
>> The first patch adds a test directly comparing the execution time of
>> 'prime_cache_tree()' with that of 'cache_tree_update()'. The results show
>> that on a fully-valid cache tree, they perform the same, but on a
>> fully-invalid cache tree, 'prime_cache_tree()' is multiple times faster
>> (although both are so fast that the total execution time of 100 invocations
>> is needed to compare the results in the default perf repo).
> 
> One thing I found interesting is how you needed 200 iterations to show
> a meaningful change in this test script, but in the case of 'git reset'
> we can see sizeable improvements even with a single iteration.

All of the new performance tests run with multiple iterations: 20 for reset
(10 iterations of two resets each), 100 for read-tree, 200 for the
comparison of 'cache_tree_update()' & 'prime_cache_tree()'. Those counts
were picked mostly by trial-and-error, to strike a balance of "the test
doesn't take too long to run" and "the change in execution time is clearly
visible in the results."

> 
> Is there something about this test that is artificially speeding up
> these iterations? Perhaps the index has up-to-date filesystem information
> that allows these methods to avoid filesystem interactions that are
> necessary in the 'git reset' case?

I would expect the "cache_tree_update, invalid" test's execution time, when
scaled to the iterations of 'read-tree' and 'reset', to match the change in
timing of those commands, but the command tests are reporting *much* larger
improvements (e.g., I'd expect a 0.27s improvement in 'git read-tree', but
the results are *consistently* >=0.9s).

Per trace2 logs, a single invocation of 'read-tree' matching the one added
in 'p0006' spent 0.010108s in 'cache_tree_update()'. Over 100 iterations,
the total time would be ~1.01s, which lines up with the 'p0006' test
results. However, the trace2 results for "test-tool cache-tree --count 3
--fresh --update" show the first iteration taking 0.013060s (looks good),
then the next taking 0.003755s, then 0.004026s (_much_ faster than
expected).

To be honest, I can't figure out what's going on there. It might be some
kind of runtime/memory optimization with repeatedly rebuilding the same
cache tree (doesn't seem to be compiler optimization, since the speedup
still happens with '-O0'). The only sure-fire way to avoid it seems to be
moving the iteration outside of 'test-cache-tree.c' and into 'p0090'.
Unfortunately, the command initialization overhead *really* slows things
down, but I can add a "control" test (with no cache tree refresh) to
quantify how long that initialization takes.

While looking into this, I found a few other things I'd like to add to/fix
in that test (add a "partially-invalidated" cache tree case, use the
original cache tree OID in 'prime_cache_tree()' rather than the OID at
HEAD), so I'll re-roll with those + the updated iteration logic.

Thanks for bringing this up!

>  
>> The second patch introduces the 'skip_cache_tree_update' option for
>> 'unpack_trees()', but does not use it yet.
>>
>> The remaining three patches update callers that make the aforementioned
>> redundant cache tree updates. The performance impact on these callers ranges
>> from "negligible" (in 'rebase') to "substantial" (in 'read-tree') - more
>> details can be found in the commit messages of the patch associated with the
>> affected code path.
> 
> I found these patches well motivated and the code change to be so
> unobtrusive that the benefits are well worth the new options.

Thanks!

> 
> Thanks,
> -Stolee