Re: [PATCH v4 03/10] commit-graph: compute generation numbers

> Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> writes:
>
>> While preparing commits to be written into a commit-graph file, compute
>> the generation numbers using a depth-first strategy.
> Sidenote: for generation numbers it does not matter if we use
> depth-first or breadth-first strategy, but it is more natural to use
> depth-first search because generation numbers need post-order processing
> (parents before child).
>
>> The only commits that are walked in this depth-first search are those
>> without a precomputed generation number. Thus, computation time will be
>> relative to the number of new commits to the commit-graph file.
> A question: what happens if the existing commit graph is from older
> version of git and has _ZERO for generation numbers?
>
> Answer: I see that we treat both _INFINITY (not in commit-graph) and
> _ZERO (in commit graph but not computed) as not computed generation
> numbers.  All right.
>
>> If a computed generation number would exceed GENERATION_NUMBER_MAX, then
>> use GENERATION_NUMBER_MAX instead.
> All right, though I guess this would remain theoretical for a long
> while.
>
> We don't have any way of testing this, at least not without recompiling
> Git with lower value of GENERATION_NUMBER_MAX -- which means not
> automatically, isn't it?
>
>> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
>> ---
>>   commit-graph.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 45 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
>> index 9ad21c3ffb..047fa9fca5 100644
>> --- a/commit-graph.c
>> +++ b/commit-graph.c
>> @@ -439,6 +439,9 @@ static void write_graph_chunk_data(struct hashfile *f, int hash_len,
>>   		else
>>   			packedDate[0] = 0;
>>   
>> +		if ((*list)->generation != GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY)
>> +			packedDate[0] |= htonl((*list)->generation << 2);
>> +
> If we stumble upon commit marked as "not in commit-graph" while writing
> commit graph, it is a BUG(), isn't it?
>
> (Problem noticed by Junio.)

>
> It is a bit strange to me that the code uses get_be32 for reading, but
> htonl for writing.  Is Git tested on non little-endian machines, like
> big-endian ppc64 or s390x, or on mixed-endian machines (or
> selectable-endian machines with data endianness set to non
> little-endian, like ia64)?  If not, could we use for example openSUSE
> Build Service (https://build.opensuse.org/) for this?

>
>>   		packedDate[1] = htonl((*list)->date);
>>   		hashwrite(f, packedDate, 8);
>>   
>> @@ -571,6 +574,46 @@ static void close_reachable(struct packed_oid_list *oids)
>>   	}
>>   }
>>   
>> +static void compute_generation_numbers(struct commit** commits,
>> +				       int nr_commits)
>> +{
>> +	int i;
>> +	struct commit_list *list = NULL;
> All right, commit_list will work as stack.
>
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < nr_commits; i++) {
>> +		if (commits[i]->generation != GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY &&
>> +		    commits[i]->generation != GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO)
>> +			continue;
> All right, we consider _INFINITY and _SERO as not computed.  If
> generation number is computed (by 'recursion' or from commit graph), we
> (re)use it.  This means that generation number calculation is
> incremental, as intended -- good.
>
>> +
>> +		commit_list_insert(commits[i], &list);
> Start depth-first walks from commits given.
>
>> +		while (list) {
>> +			struct commit *current = list->item;
>> +			struct commit_list *parent;
>> +			int all_parents_computed = 1;
> Here all_parents_computed is a boolean flag.  I see that it is easier to
> start with assumption that all parents will have computed generation
> numbers.
>
>> +			uint32_t max_generation = 0;
> The generation number value of 0 functions as sentinel; generation
> numbers start from 1.  Not that it matters much, as lowest possible
> generation number is 1, and we could have started from that value.

>
>> +
>> +			for (parent = current->parents; parent; parent = parent->next) {
>> +				if (parent->item->generation == GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY ||
>> +				    parent->item->generation == GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO) {
>> +					all_parents_computed = 0;
>> +					commit_list_insert(parent->item, &list);
>> +					break;
> If some parent doesn't have generation number calculated, we add it to
> stack (and break out of loop because it is depth-first walk), and mark
> this situation.  All right.
>
>> +				} else if (parent->item->generation > max_generation) {
>> +					max_generation = parent->item->generation;
> Otherwise, update max_generation.  All right.
>
>> +				}
>> +			}
>> +
>> +			if (all_parents_computed) {
>> +				current->generation = max_generation + 1;
>> +				pop_commit(&list);
>> +			}
>> +
>> +			if (current->generation > GENERATION_NUMBER_MAX)
>> +				current->generation = GENERATION_NUMBER_MAX;
> This conditional should be inside all_parents_computed test, for example
> like this:
>
>    +			if (all_parents_computed) {
>    +				current->generation = max_generation + 1;
>    +				if (current->generation > GENERATION_NUMBER_MAX)
>    +					current->generation = GENERATION_NUMBER_MAX;
>    +
>    +				pop_commit(&list);
>    +			}
>
> (Noticed by Junio.)
>
> Sidenote: when we revisit the commit, returning from depth-first walk of
> one of its parents, we calculate max_generation from scratch again.
> This does not matter for performance, as it's just data access and
> calculating maximum - any workaround to not restart those calculations
> would take more time and memory.  And it's simple.
>
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>>   void write_commit_graph(const char *obj_dir,
>>   			const char **pack_indexes,
>>   			int nr_packs,
>> @@ -694,6 +737,8 @@ void write_commit_graph(const char *obj_dir,
>>   	if (commits.nr >= GRAPH_PARENT_MISSING)
>>   		die(_("too many commits to write graph"));
>>   
>> +	compute_generation_numbers(commits.list, commits.nr);
>> +
> Nice and simple.  All right.
>
> I guess that we do not pass "struct packed_commit_list commits" as
> argument to compute_generation_numbers instead of "struct commit**
> commits.list" and "int commits.nr" to compute_generation_numbers() to
> keep the latter nice and generic?