Re: [RFC PATCH 10/10] pack-objects: improve partial packfile reuse

>
> I'm going to start with pack-bitmap.h, then builtin/pack-objects.c.
>
> >  int reuse_partial_packfile_from_bitmap(struct bitmap_index *,
> >                                      struct packed_git **packfile,
> > -                                    uint32_t *entries, off_t *up_to);
> > +                                    uint32_t *entries,
> > +                                    struct bitmap **bitmap);
>
> Makes sense. The existing code determines if the given packfile is
> suitable, and if yes, the span of the packfile to use. With this patch,
> we resolve to use the given packfile, and want to compute which objects
> to use, storing the computation result in an uncompressed bitmap.
> (Resolving to use the given packfile is not that much different from
> existing behavior, as far as I know, since we currently only consider
> one packfile at most anyway.)
>
> So replacing the out param makes sense, although a more descriptive name
> than "bitmap" would be nice.

> > +/*
> > + * Record the offsets needed in our reused packfile chunks due to
> > + * "gaps" where we omitted some objects.
> > + */
> > +static struct reused_chunk {
> > +     off_t start;
> > +     off_t offset;
> > +} *reused_chunks;
> > +static int reused_chunks_nr;
> > +static int reused_chunks_alloc;
>
> This makes sense - offsets may be different when we omit objects from
> the packfile. I think this can be computed by calculating the number of
> zero bits between the current object's index and the nth object prior
> (where n is the offset) in the bitmap resulting from
> reuse_partial_packfile_from_bitmap() above, thus eliminating the need
> for this array, but I haven't tested it.

> > +                     if (0) {
> > +                             off_t expected_size = cur - offset;
> > +
> > +                             if (len + ofs_len < expected_size) {
> > +                                     unsigned max_pad = (len >= 4) ? 9 : 5;
> > +                                     header[len - 1] |= 0x80;
> > +                                     while (len < max_pad && len + ofs_len < expected_size)
> > +                                             header[len++] = 0x80;
> > +                                     header[len - 1] &= 0x7F;
> > +                             }
> > +                     }
>
> This if(0) should be deleted.

> > @@ -1002,6 +1132,10 @@ static int have_duplicate_entry(const struct object_id *oid,
> >  {
> >       struct object_entry *entry;
> >
> > +     if (reuse_packfile_bitmap &&
> > +         bitmap_walk_contains(bitmap_git, reuse_packfile_bitmap, oid))
> > +             return 1;
>
> Hmm...why did we previously not need to check the reuse information, but
> we do now? I gave the code a cursory glance but couldn't find the
> answer.
>
> > @@ -2571,7 +2706,9 @@ static void ll_find_deltas(struct object_entry **list, unsigned list_size,
> >
> >  static int obj_is_packed(const struct object_id *oid)
> >  {
> > -     return !!packlist_find(&to_pack, oid, NULL);
> > +     return packlist_find(&to_pack, oid, NULL) ||
> > +             (reuse_packfile_bitmap &&
> > +              bitmap_walk_contains(bitmap_git, reuse_packfile_bitmap, oid));
>
> Same question here - why do we need to check the reuse information?