git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, ps@pks.im, jltobler@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] reftable/stack: add function to check if optimization is required
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 00:18:51 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZTTfaGsQrK-e5c9h4nMk656GM0Mue6Ytie4GOes4n_-5g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqms50l594.fsf@gitster.g>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3660 bytes --]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> The reftable backend performs auto-compaction as part of its regular
>>>> flow, which is required to keep the number of tables part of a stack at
>>>> bay. This allows it to stay optimized.
>>>
>>> Sounds very sensible.
>>>
>>>> Compaction can also be triggered voluntarily by the user via the 'git
>>>> pack-refs' or the 'git refs optimize' command. However, currently there
>>>> is no way for the user to check if optimization is required without
>>>> actually performing it.
>>>
>>> Sounds very sensible goal.
>>>
>>> But where is the existing logic to decide when it needs to
>>> auto-compact, performed as part of its regular flow?
>>>
>>> After reading "the reftable machinery already decides when it needs
>>> to compact and does so" plus "but the logic to decide is not made
>>> available to users", I would have expected for this patch to extract
>>> such an existing logic or otherwise make it available to new callers
>>> so that things like "gc --auto" can call it, but the diffstat shows
>>> mostly additions, which does not give readers any confidence in the
>>> new function that answers "do we need compaction?".  It would give
>>> _an_ answer, but there is no clue if the answer it gives is the same
>>> answer as the existing logic that decides when to compact as part of
>>> the regular operation.
>>>
>>> I am puzzled.
>>>
>>>> +int reftable_stack_compaction_required(struct reftable_stack *st,
>>>> +				       bool use_heuristics,
>>>> +				       bool *required)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct segment seg;
>>>> +	int err = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (st->merged->tables_len < 2) {
>>>> +		*required = false;
>>>> +		return 0;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!use_heuristics) {
>>>> +		*required = true;
>>>> +		return 0;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	err = stack_segments_for_compaction(st, &seg);
>>>> +	if (err)
>>>> +		return err;
>>>> +
>>>> +	*required = segment_size(&seg) > 0;
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Specifically, where is the above logic come from?  Is it duplicating
>>> an existing logic but that code is hard to separate out into this
>>> helper?
>>>
>>
>> Good question.
>>
>> Most of this logic is already part of 'reftable_stack_auto_compact()'.
>> We also have another similar function 'reftable_stack_compact_all()'.
>> The former is used for compaction based on heuristics and the latter is
>> for compacting all tables into one. In the refs subsystem usage of
>> heuristics is denoted by the usage of the 'REFS_OPTIMIZE_AUTO' flag.
>>
>> The function we're introducing allows users to explicitly mention if
>> they want to use heuristics or not. This allows us to differentiate
>> between the two modes. The result of which is that this uses intertwined
>> logic of the two existing functions. Hence we can't extract any code out.
>>
>> I'll add this information in the commit message.
>
> You mean you already have two duplicate implementations whose
> definition of "when should we compact?" can drift apart over time
> (worse, they may already be subtly different), and you are adding
> yet another one?

More like we have two functions:
1. compact all tables into one
2. compact based on heuristics

This function oversees logic from both.

> Instead of describing such an insanity in the commit message, can we
> refactor to have a single central logic that is used from three
> places?
>
> Thanks.

You're right though, I did manage to extract out the common code and
will send in a new version. Thanks for the push.

- Karthik

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 690 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2025-11-06  8:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-10-31 14:22 [PATCH 0/5] maintenance: add an 'is-needed' subcommand Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 14:22 ` [PATCH 1/5] reftable/stack: return stack segments directly Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 16:22   ` Justin Tobler
2025-11-03 15:05     ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-03 18:03       ` Justin Tobler
2025-10-31 14:22 ` [PATCH 2/5] reftable/stack: add function to check if optimization is required Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 17:02   ` Justin Tobler
2025-10-31 18:17     ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-03 16:20       ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-03 15:51     ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-03 17:59       ` Justin Tobler
2025-11-03 14:00   ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-03 16:35     ` Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 14:22 ` [PATCH 3/5] refs: add a `optimize_required` field to `struct ref_storage_be` Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 14:22 ` [PATCH 4/5] maintenance: add checking logic in `pack_refs_condition()` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-03 14:00   ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-03 17:04     ` Karthik Nayak
2025-10-31 14:22 ` [PATCH 5/5] maintenance: add 'is-needed' subcommand Karthik Nayak
2025-11-03 14:00   ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-03 17:18     ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04  5:54       ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-04  8:28         ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04  8:43 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] maintenance: add an " Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04  8:43   ` [PATCH v2 1/5] reftable/stack: return stack segments directly Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04  8:43   ` [PATCH v2 2/5] reftable/stack: add function to check if optimization is required Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 20:26     ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-05 14:11       ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-05 18:10         ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-06  8:18           ` Karthik Nayak [this message]
2025-11-04  8:43   ` [PATCH v2 3/5] refs: add a `optimize_required` field to `struct ref_storage_be` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04  8:43   ` [PATCH v2 4/5] maintenance: add checking logic in `pack_refs_condition()` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04  8:44   ` [PATCH v2 5/5] maintenance: add 'is-needed' subcommand Karthik Nayak
2025-11-04 15:43   ` [PATCH v2 0/5] maintenance: add an " Junio C Hamano
2025-11-05 14:00     ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06  8:22 ` [PATCH v3 " Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06  8:22   ` [PATCH v3 1/5] reftable/stack: return stack segments directly Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06  8:22   ` [PATCH v3 2/5] reftable/stack: add function to check if optimization is required Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 18:18     ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-07  6:06       ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-06  8:22   ` [PATCH v3 3/5] refs: add a `optimize_required` field to `struct ref_storage_be` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06  8:22   ` [PATCH v3 4/5] maintenance: add checking logic in `pack_refs_condition()` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 11:58     ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-06 13:04       ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 15:24       ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-07 15:58         ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-07 16:41           ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-07 15:58         ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06  8:22   ` [PATCH v3 5/5] maintenance: add 'is-needed' subcommand Karthik Nayak
2025-11-06 12:02     ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-11-06 13:07       ` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] maintenance: add an " Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51   ` [PATCH v4 1/5] reftable/stack: return stack segments directly Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51   ` [PATCH v4 2/5] reftable/stack: add function to check if optimization is required Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51   ` [PATCH v4 3/5] refs: add a `optimize_required` field to `struct ref_storage_be` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51   ` [PATCH v4 4/5] maintenance: add checking logic in `pack_refs_condition()` Karthik Nayak
2025-11-08 21:51   ` [PATCH v4 5/5] maintenance: add 'is-needed' subcommand Karthik Nayak
2025-11-10  6:46   ` [PATCH v4 0/5] maintenance: add an " Patrick Steinhardt

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='CAOLa=ZTTfaGsQrK-e5c9h4nMk656GM0Mue6Ytie4GOes4n_-5g@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=karthik.188@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=jltobler@gmail.com \
    --cc=ps@pks.im \
    /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).