Re: [PATCH v2 10/13] pack-objects: refactor path-walk delta phase

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: May 16, 2025, 16:27 UTC
Message-ID: <7ee3884e-b629-4b59-8e9a-a9a56abce786@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <aBqz+VfSvecJdWHw@nand.local>

On 5/6/25 9:14 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 03:22:46PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> The current implementation is not integrated with threads, but could be
>> done in a future update.
> 
> I think that "in a future update" may be worth replacing with "the
> following commit", as the former suggests (to me) that it may be perused
> outside of this series.

Noted and fixed.

Show 14 quoted lines

>> +static void find_deltas_for_region(struct object_entry *list,
>> +				   struct packing_region *region,
>> +				   unsigned int *processed)
>> +{
>> +	struct object_entry **delta_list;
>> +	uint32_t delta_list_nr = 0;
>> +
>> +	ALLOC_ARRAY(delta_list, region->nr);
>> +	for (uint32_t i = 0; i < region->nr; i++) {
> 
> I know that these values are all unsigned, and very unlikely to get near
> the 32-bit maximum, but I do think we should use size_t here (and
> likewise when dealing with values that deal with how many entries in a
> list we've allocated and indexes into that list).

I've updated things to size_t where I could across this patch. Thanks.

Show 26 quoted lines

>> +static void find_deltas_by_region(struct object_entry *list,
>> +				  struct packing_region *regions,
>> +				  uint32_t start, uint32_t nr)
> 
> I imagine that "start" here is setup for the following commit which will
> parallelize this task across multiple threads, with each thread starting
> at a different position.
> 
> I wonder if (as an alternative) we could get away with passing in a
> (struct packing_region *, size_t) pair and drop "start". I think this
> can work if you pass in the result of adding whatever the value of
> "start" would be to to_pack.regions here.
> 
> That somewhat hides the fact that this code is meant to be run across
> multiple threads, but in a way that I think is worth doing. It lets the
> function avoid having to do things like:
> 
>    for (size_t i = start; i < start + nr; i++)
> 
> and instead do the simpler:
> 
>    for (size_t i = 0; i < nr; i++)
> 
> since the caller already adjusted the regions pointer for us. As a
> side-effect, it also means that the call below in prepare_pack() can
> avoid passing a literal zero.

I generally avoid this kind of pattern, because it makes it more difficult to understand what is going on when debugging. The cost of adding 'start' to the index seems low relative to having a consistent indexing scheme when accessing from the "global" list of items.

This only gets more complicated when the threaded version iterates on a "consecutive sublist of regions".

Show 10 quoted lines

>> +/**
> 
> This is an extreme nitpick, but I think that "/**" (as opposed to "/*")
> is preferred, as the former is used for Doxygen-style comments. I feel
> like I have seen Junio comment on this before, but searching 'f:Junio
> "/**"' yields a measly 83,000+ results, so I am unlikely to find it ;-).
> 
> (Not worth rerolling on its own, but if you are rerolling anyway, which
> is what I gathered from some of your earlier replies, it may be worth
> picking up along the way.)

I'm confused. Are you saying I should change from "/**" to "/*" (which
is the opposite of your preferred statement) or did you misread that I
had used "/**"? I can't determine which statement is the intended one.
  Thanks,
-Stolee