git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>, git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] builtin/repack.c: don't move existing packs out of the way
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 19:25:45 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <X7MYifflg7SaTRXm@nand.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpn4c7uf2.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 03:29:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> > This behavior dates all the way back to 2ad47d6 (git-repack: Be
> > careful when updating the same pack as an existing one., 2006-06-25).
> > 2ad47d6 is mainly concerned about a case where a newly written pack
> > would have a different structure than its index. This used to be
> > possible when the pack name was a hash of the set of objects. Under this
> > naming scheme, two packs that store the same set of objects could differ
> > in delta selection, object positioning, or both. If this happened, then
> > any such packs would be unreadable in the instant between copying the
> > new pack and new index (i.e., either the index or pack will be stale
> > depending on the order that they were copied).
>
> True.  So the idea is that we can now pretend that we never wrote
> the new packfile and leave the existing one as-is?

True for packs, which are guaranteed to be unchanged by having the same
checksum in their filename. For other files that use their pack's
checksum in their filename, we want to overwrite the existing copy with
the one we just wrote.

> > This patch is mostly limited to removing code paths that deal with the
> > 'old' prefixing, with the exception of pack metadata.
>
> ... "pack metadata" meaning?  We do not remove and replace the file,
> but we update their mtime to keep these packfiles more fresh than
> other packfiles, or something?

Meaning: .idx, .bitmap, .promisor files. I probably ought to be more
clear in what "metadata" means, since it could easily be confused with
mtime and others.

> > @@ -463,109 +463,34 @@ int cmd_repack(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Ok we have prepared all new packfiles.
> >  	 */
> >  	for_each_string_list_item(item, &names) {
> >  		for (ext = 0; ext < ARRAY_SIZE(exts); ext++) {
> >  			char *fname, *fname_old;
> >
> >  			fname = mkpathdup("%s/pack-%s%s",
> >  					packdir, item->string, exts[ext].name);
> >  			fname_old = mkpathdup("%s-%s%s",
> >  					packtmp, item->string, exts[ext].name);
> > +
> > +			if (((uintptr_t)item->util) & (1 << ext)) {
> > +				struct stat statbuffer;
> > +				if (!stat(fname_old, &statbuffer)) {
> > +					statbuffer.st_mode &= ~(S_IWUSR | S_IWGRP | S_IWOTH);
> > +					chmod(fname_old, statbuffer.st_mode);
> > +				}
> > +
> >  				if (rename(fname_old, fname))
> >  					die_errno(_("renaming '%s' failed"), fname_old);
>
> OK, so this is where the previous step matters.  We do the same as
> before (i.e. stat+chmod and rename) only for paths we have created.
>
> We don't reuse the old one because we have already written a new
> file so we won't save anything by doing so, and checking if the
> target of rename exists already before deciding not to rename cannot
> be made atomic, so just relying on rename() to do the right thing is
> a good idea anyway.
>
> > +			} else if (!exts[ext].optional)
> > +				die(_("missing required file: %s"), fname_old);
>
> If one branch of if/else if.../else requires multi-statement block,
> use {} on all of them, for consistency.

Thanks.

> So, if we wrote a few .$ext for a packfile but not some .$ext, if
> the one we didn't write is among the necessary one, we are in
> trouble?  OK.

Yes, exactly.

> > +			else if (unlink(fname) < 0 && errno != ENOENT)
> > +				die_errno(_("could not unlink: %s"), fname);
>
> And if we wrote .pack and .idx but not .bitmap, the old .bitmpa that
> has the same pack hash may be stale and we discard it for safety?
> That sounds "prudent" but it is not immdiately clear from what
> danger we are protecting ourselves.
>
> In any case, much of what I speculated while reading the proposed
> log message turned out to be false, which may be a sign that the log
> message did not explain the approach clearly enough.  I thought that
> a newly created file that happened to be identical to existing ones
> would be discarded without getting renamed to their final location,
> but the code does not do such special casing.  I thought the
> 'metadata' it talks about were to compensate for side effects of
> reusing the old files, but that was not what the 'metadata' was even
> about.

It's more about: we trust what pack-objects wrote to be the current
state of things. So, if a bitmap already exists, but the caller did a
back-to-back repack and this time generates their bitmap with the
hash cache extension, we prefer the newer bitmap to the one that already
existed.

That goes both ways: if pack-objects _didn't_ write a file that already
exists, we want to drop the existing file. Peff seems to talk more about
this in his email, which I'll respond to now...

> Other than that, the change in [2/3] and [3/3] look quite sensible
> (I am not saying [1/3] is bad---I haven't looked at it yet).
>
> Thanks.

Thanks,
Taylor

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-11-17  0:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-16 18:41 [PATCH 0/3] repack: " Taylor Blau
2020-11-16 18:41 ` [PATCH 1/3] repack: make "exts" array available outside cmd_repack() Taylor Blau
2020-11-16 18:41 ` [PATCH 2/3] builtin/repack.c: keep track of what pack-objects wrote Taylor Blau
2020-11-16 18:41 ` [PATCH 3/3] builtin/repack.c: don't move existing packs out of the way Taylor Blau
2020-11-16 23:29   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-17  0:02     ` Jeff King
2020-11-17  0:26       ` Taylor Blau
2020-11-17  0:25     ` Taylor Blau [this message]
2020-11-17  0:46       ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-17 20:15         ` Taylor Blau
2020-11-17 21:28           ` Junio C Hamano

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=X7MYifflg7SaTRXm@nand.local \
    --to=me@ttaylorr.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 3/3] builtin/repack.c: don'\''t move existing packs out of the way' \
    /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).