Re: [PATCH v1 05/10] cat-file: use delta_base_cache entries directly

> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:35:14AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > For objects already in the delta_base_cache, we can safely use
> > them directly to avoid the malloc+memcpy+free overhead.
> 
> Same here, I feel like you need to explain a bit more in depth what the
> actual idea behind your patch is to help reviewers.

> > diff --git a/builtin/cat-file.c b/builtin/cat-file.c
> > index bc4bb89610..769c8b48d2 100644
> > --- a/builtin/cat-file.c
> > +++ b/builtin/cat-file.c
> > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> >  #include "promisor-remote.h"
> >  #include "mailmap.h"
> >  #include "write-or-die.h"
> > +#define USE_DIRECT_CACHE 1
> 
> I'm confused by this. Why do we introduce a macro that is always defined
> to a trueish value? Why don't we just remove the code guarded by this?

> >  enum batch_mode {
> >  	BATCH_MODE_CONTENTS,
> > @@ -386,7 +387,18 @@ static void print_object_or_die(struct batch_options *opt, struct expand_data *d
> >  
> >  	if (data->content) {
> >  		batch_write(opt, data->content, data->size);
> > -		FREE_AND_NULL(data->content);
> > +		switch (data->info.whence) {
> > +		case OI_CACHED: BUG("FIXME OI_CACHED support not done");
> 
> Is this something that will get addressed in a subsequent patch? If so,
> the commit message and the message here should likely mention this. If
> not, we should have a comment here saying why this is fine to be kept.

> > diff --git a/object-file.c b/object-file.c
> > index 1cc29c3c58..19100e823d 100644
> > --- a/object-file.c
> > +++ b/object-file.c
> > @@ -1586,6 +1586,11 @@ static int do_oid_object_info_extended(struct repository *r,
> >  			oidclr(oi->delta_base_oid, the_repository->hash_algo);
> >  		if (oi->type_name)
> >  			strbuf_addstr(oi->type_name, type_name(co->type));
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Currently `blame' is the only command which creates
> > +		 * OI_CACHED, and direct_cache is only used by `cat-file'.
> > +		 */
> > +		assert(!oi->direct_cache);
> 
> We shouldn't use asserts, but rather use `BUG()` statements in our
> codebase. `assert()`s don't help users that run production builds.

> >  		if (oi->contentp)
> >  			*oi->contentp = xmemdupz(co->buf, co->size);
> >  		oi->whence = OI_CACHED;
> > diff --git a/object-store-ll.h b/object-store-ll.h
> > index b71a15f590..50c5219308 100644
> > --- a/object-store-ll.h
> > +++ b/object-store-ll.h
> > @@ -298,6 +298,13 @@ struct object_info {
> >  		OI_PACKED,
> >  		OI_DBCACHED
> >  	} whence;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * set if caller is able to use OI_DBCACHED entries without copying
> > +	 * TODO OI_CACHED if its use goes beyond blame
> > +	 */
> > +	unsigned direct_cache:1;
> > +
> 
> This comment looks unfinished to me.

> >  	union {
> >  		/*
> >  		 * struct {
> > diff --git a/packfile.c b/packfile.c
> > index 1a409ec142..b2660e14f9 100644
> > --- a/packfile.c
> > +++ b/packfile.c
> > @@ -1362,6 +1362,9 @@ static enum object_type packed_to_object_type(struct repository *r,
> >  static struct hashmap delta_base_cache;
> >  static size_t delta_base_cached;
> >  
> > +/* ensures oi->direct_cache is used properly */
> > +static int delta_base_cache_lock;
> > +
> 
> How exactly does it ensure it? What is the intent of this variable and
> how would it be used correctly?

> > +static void lock_delta_base_cache(void)
> > +{
> > +	delta_base_cache_lock++;
> > +	assert(delta_base_cache_lock == 1);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void unlock_delta_base_cache(void)
> > +{
> > +	delta_base_cache_lock--;
> > +	assert(delta_base_cache_lock == 0);
> > +}
> 
> Hum. So this looks like a pseudo-mutex to me? Are there any code paths
> where this may be used in a threaded context? I assume not in the
> current state of affairs as we only use it in git-cat-file(1).

> >  static inline void release_delta_base_cache(struct delta_base_cache_entry *ent)
> >  {
> >  	free(ent->data);
> > @@ -1453,6 +1468,7 @@ static inline void release_delta_base_cache(struct delta_base_cache_entry *ent)
> >  void clear_delta_base_cache(void)
> >  {
> >  	struct list_head *lru, *tmp;
> > +	assert(!delta_base_cache_lock);
> >  	list_for_each_safe(lru, tmp, &delta_base_cache_lru) {
> >  		struct delta_base_cache_entry *entry =
> >  			list_entry(lru, struct delta_base_cache_entry, lru);
> > @@ -1466,6 +1482,7 @@ static void add_delta_base_cache(struct packed_git *p, off_t base_offset,
> >  	struct delta_base_cache_entry *ent;
> >  	struct list_head *lru, *tmp;
> >  
> > +	assert(!delta_base_cache_lock);
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Check required to avoid redundant entries when more than one thread
> >  	 * is unpacking the same object, in unpack_entry() (since its phases I
> > @@ -1521,11 +1538,16 @@ int packed_object_info(struct repository *r, struct packed_git *p,
> >  		if (oi->sizep)
> >  			*oi->sizep = ent->size;
> >  		if (oi->contentp) {
> > -			if (!oi->content_limit ||
> > -					ent->size <= oi->content_limit)
> > +			/* ignore content_limit if avoiding copy from cache */
> > +			if (oi->direct_cache) {
> > +				lock_delta_base_cache();
> > +				*oi->contentp = ent->data;
> > +			} else if (!oi->content_limit ||
> > +					ent->size <= oi->content_limit) {
> >  				*oi->contentp = xmemdupz(ent->data, ent->size);
> > -			else
> > +			} else {
> >  				*oi->contentp = NULL; /* caller must stream */
> > +			}
> >  		}
> >  	} else if (oi->contentp && !oi->content_limit) {
> >  		*oi->contentp = unpack_entry(r, p, obj_offset, &type,
> 
> Okay, this hunk is the gist of this patch. Instead of copying over the
> delta base, we simply take its data pointer as the content pointer. All
> the other infra that you're adding is mostly only added as a safeguard
> to make sure that we don't discard the delta base while the object is
> getting accessed.