Re: [PATCH v4 04/13] commit-graph: implement write_commit_graph()

> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> jt/binsearch-with-fanout introduces one when there is a 256-entry
>> fanout table (not the case here).
>>
>> The bsearch() method in search.h (and used in
>> pack-write.c:need_large_offset) does not return the _position_ of a
>> found element.
>>
>> Neither of these suit my needs, but I could just be searching for the
>> wrong strings. Also, I could divert my energies in this area to create
>> a generic search in the style of jt/binsearch-with-fanout.
> ... me goes and digs ...
>
> What I had in mind was the one in sha1-lookup.c, actually.  Having
> said that, hand-rolling another one is not too huge a deal;
> eventually people will notice and consolidate code after the series
> stabilizes anyway ;-)

>
>>>> +				num_large_edges++;
>>>> +				parent = parent->next;
>>>> +			} while (parent);
>>> It feels somewhat wasteful to traverse the commit's parents list
>>> only to count, without populating the octopus table (which I
>>> understand is assumed to be minority case under this design).
>> Since we are writing the commit graph file in-order, we cannot write
>> the octopus table until after the chunk lengths are known.
> Oh, my "minority case" comment was me wondering "since we expect
> there are only a few, why not keep them in memory while we discover
> them here, so that the writing phase that come later do not have to
> go through all commits again counting their parents?  would it be
> more performant and a better trade-off?"  We can certainly do such
> an optimization later (iow, it is not all that crucial issue and
> certainly I didn't mention the above as something that needs to be
> "fixed"--there is nothing broken).
>
>> store the octopus table in memory and then dump it into the file
>> later, but walking the parents is quite fast after all the commits are
>> loaded. I'm not sure the time optimization merits the extra complexity
>> here. (I'm happy to revisit this if we do see this performance
>> lacking.)
>>
>> P.S. I really like the name "octopus table" and will use that for
>> informal discussions of this format.
> I actually do not mind that name used as the official term.  I find
> it far more descriptive and understandable than "long edge" / "large
> edge" at least to a Git person.

>
>> You're right that int_id isn't great, and your more-specific
>> "oid_table_pos" shows an extra reason why it isn't great: when we add
>> the GRAPH_LAST_EDGE bit or set it to GRAPH_PARENT_MISSING, the value
>> is NOT a table position.
> Perhaps I am somewhat biased, but it is quite natural for our
> codebase and internal API to say something like this:
>
>      x_pos(table, key) function's return value is the non-negative
>      position for the key in the table when the key is there; when it
>      returns a negative value, it is (-1 - position) where the "position"
>      is the position in the table they key would have been found if
>      it was in there.
>
> and store the return value from such a function in a variable called
> "pos".  Surely, sometimes "pos" does not have _the_ position, but
> that does not make it a bad name.
>
> Saying "MISSING is a special value that denotes 'nothing is here'"
> and allowing it to be set to a variable that meant to hold the
> position is not such a bad thing, though.  After all, that is how
> you use NULL as a special value for a pointer variable ;-).
>
> Same for using the high bit to mean something else.  Taking these
> together you would explain "low 31-bit of pos holds the position for
> the item in the table.  MISSING is a special value that you can use
> to denote there is nothing.  The LAST_EDGE bit denotes that one
> group of positions ends there", or something like that.
>
>> I think the current name makes the following call very clear:
> It is still a strange name nevertheless.
>
>>>> +char *write_commit_graph(const char *obj_dir)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct packed_oid_list oids;
>>>> +	struct packed_commit_list commits;
>>>> +	struct sha1file *f;
>>>> +	int i, count_distinct = 0;
>>>> +	DIR *info_dir;
>>>> +	struct strbuf tmp_file = STRBUF_INIT;
>>>> +	struct strbuf graph_file = STRBUF_INIT;
>>>> +	unsigned char final_hash[GIT_MAX_RAWSZ];
>>>> +	char *graph_name;
>>>> +	int fd;
>>>> +	uint32_t chunk_ids[5];
>>>> +	uint64_t chunk_offsets[5];
>>>> +	int num_chunks;
>>>> +	int num_long_edges;
>>>> +	struct commit_list *parent;
>>>> +
>>>> +	oids.nr = 0;
>>>> +	oids.alloc = (int)(0.15 * approximate_object_count());
>>> Heh, traditionalist would probably avoid unnecessary use of float
>>> and use something like 1/4 or 1/8 ;-)  After all, it is merely a
>>> ballpark guestimate.
>>>
>>>> +	num_long_edges = 0;
>>> This again is about naming, but I find it a bit unnatural to call
>>> the edge between a chind and its octopus parents "long".  Individual
>>> edges are not long--the only thing that is long is your "list of
>>> edges".  Some other codepaths in this patch seems to call the same
>>> concept with s/long/large/, which I found somewhat puzzling.
>> How about "num_extra_edges"...
> Yes, "extra" in the name makes it very understandable.
>