Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] pack-bitmap: boundary-based bitmap traversalt

From: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>
Date: May 5, 2023, 20:45 UTC
Message-ID: <4ce3ff5f-e7cd-f604-f5da-66939be7d314@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZFVO9kFZ+lr32WxY@nand.local>

On 5/5/2023 2:46 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 01:59:31PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>> On 5/5/2023 1:27 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
>>> Here is a reroll of my series to implement a boundary-based bitmap
>>> traversal algorithm that I worked on towards the end of 2021 with Peff.
>>>
>>> The algorithm is unchanged from the last version, but the implementation
>>> has been made much more straightforward, thanks to a very helpful
>>> suggestion from Stolee.
>>>
>>> Instead of hackily trying to write down all of the UNINTERESTING commits
>>> between the tips and boundary within limit_list(), we can just perform a
>>> commit-only walk, which will give us the set of commits that we need.
>>
>> Something that didn't seem to get attention in this version was buried
>> deep in the commentary of my high-level review [1]:
> 
> Oops, sorry, I definitely missed this unintentionally and did not mean
> to ignore it.

I had to dig deep to find it, even after knowing it was in there somewhere, so I'm not upset it didn't happen this version.

Show 22 quoted lines

>>> For these reasons, I'm surprised that this patch completely replaces
>>> the old algorithm for the new one. I would prefer to see a config
>>> option that enables this new algorithm. It would be safer to deploy
>>> that way, too.
>>
>> I still think it would be nice to keep the two algorithms for at least
>> a little while instead of completely removing the old one. Let's gather
>> some more evidence and get more reps in with the new algorithm before
>> making it the new default. I could imagine a scenario where someone
>> really wants to spend the extra time to make sure none of the objects
>> reachable from the UNINTERESTING commits are included in the output of
>> this diff.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/a143150d-7cf5-c697-0e48-0f7af1c6de8f@github.com/
> 
> Hmm. I'm not opposed to keeping the old algorithm around, though I
> wonder what the configuration option would look like here. I imagine
> that we don't want to support the old algorithm indefinitely, though.
> 
> Perhaps something like `pack.useBoundaryBitmapTraversal` (implied by
> `feature.experimental`), defaulting to "false", and then eventually
> "true"?

This name makes sense to me. Including it in feature.experimental right away seems like a good idea. Incrementing it to "true" by default after a single release would make sense, too, since the performance benefits are so clear. Just important to have that emergency toggle.

Thanks, -Stolee