Re: [RFC PATCH 11/21] parallel-checkout: make it truly parallel

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:34 PM Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/10/20 5:33 PM, Matheus Tavares wrote:
>>>
>>> +static struct child_process *setup_workers(struct checkout *state, int num_workers)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct child_process *workers;
>>> +     int i, workers_with_one_extra_item;
>>> +     size_t base_batch_size, next_to_assign = 0;
>>> +
>>> +     base_batch_size = parallel_checkout->nr / num_workers;
>>> +     workers_with_one_extra_item = parallel_checkout->nr % num_workers;
>>> +     ALLOC_ARRAY(workers, num_workers);
>>> +
>>> +     for (i = 0; i < num_workers; ++i) {
>>> +             struct child_process *cp = &workers[i];
>>> +             size_t batch_size = base_batch_size;
>>> +
>>> +             child_process_init(cp);
>>> +             cp->git_cmd = 1;
>>> +             cp->in = -1;
>>> +             cp->out = -1;
>>> +             strvec_push(&cp->args, "checkout--helper");
>>> +             if (state->base_dir_len)
>>> +                     strvec_pushf(&cp->args, "--prefix=%s", state->base_dir);
>>> +             if (start_command(cp))
>>> +                     die(_("failed to spawn checkout worker"));
>>
>> We should consider splitting this loop into one to start the helpers
>> and another loop to later send them their assignments.  This would
>> better hide the process startup costs.
>>
>> When comparing this version with my pc-p4-core branch on Windows,
>> I was seeing a delay of 0.8 seconds between each helper process
>> getting started.  And on my version a delay of 0.2 between them.
>>
>> I was testing with a huge repo and the batch size was ~200k, so it
>> foreground process was stuck in send_batch() for a while before it
>> could start the next helper process.
>>
>> It still takes the same amount of time to send each batch, but
>> the 2nd thru nth helpers can be starting while we are sending the
>> batch to the 1st helper.  (This might just be a Windows issue because
>> of how slow process creation is on Windows....)
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. I will split the loop in v2.
> 
>> We could maybe also save a little time splitting the batches
>> across the helpers, but that's a refinement for later...
>>
>>> +
>>> +             /* distribute the extra work evenly */
>>> +             if (i < workers_with_one_extra_item)
>>> +                     batch_size++;
>>> +
>>> +             send_batch(cp->in, next_to_assign, batch_size);
>>> +             next_to_assign += batch_size;
>>>        }
>>>
>>> +     return workers;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void finish_workers(struct child_process *workers, int num_workers)
>>> +{
>>> +     int i;
>>> +     for (i = 0; i < num_workers; ++i) {
>>> +             struct child_process *w = &workers[i];
>>> +             if (w->in >= 0)
>>> +                     close(w->in);
>>> +             if (w->out >= 0)
>>> +                     close(w->out);
>>
>> You might also consider splitting this loop too.  The net-net here
>> is that the foreground process closes the handle to the child and
>> waits for the child to exit -- which it will because it get EOF on
>> its stdin.
>>
>> But the foreground process is stuck in a wait() for it to do so.
>>
>> You could make finish_workers() just call close() on all the child
>> handles and then have an atexit() handler to actually wait() and
>> reap them.  This would let the children exit asynchronously (while
>> the caller here in the foreground process is updating the index
>> on disk, for example).
> 
> Makes sense, thanks. And I think we could achieve this by setting both
> `clean_on_exit` and `wait_after_clean` on the child_process struct,
> right? (BTW, I have just noticed that we probably want these flags set
> for another reason too: we wouldn't want the workers to keep checking
> out files if the main process was killed.)
> 
> Maybe the downside of using the atexit() handler, instead of calling
> finish_command(), would be that we cannot free the `workers` array
> when cleaning up parallel-checkout, right? Also, we wouldn't be able
> to report an error if the worker ends with an error code (but at this
> point it would have already sent all the results to the foreground
> process, anyway).
> 
> Do you think that we can mitigate the wait() cost by just splitting
> the loop in two, like we are going to do in setup_workers()?

> 
>>
>>> +             if (finish_command(w))
>>> +                     die(_("checkout worker finished with error"));
>>> +     }
>>> +     free(workers);
>>> +}