Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] fetch: implement support for atomic reference updates

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> >> It would be much more preferrable to see this series go like so:
> >> 
> >>     [1/4] create append_fetch_head() that writes out to
> >>           fetch_head->fp
> >> 
> >>     [1.5/4] convert append_fetch_head() to ALWAYS accumulate in
> >>             fetch_head->buf, and ALWAYS flushes what is accumulated
> >>             at the end.
> >
> > This is a change I'm hesitant to make. The thing is that FETCH_HEAD is
> > quite weird as the current design allows different `git fetch --append`
> > processes to write to FETCH_HEAD at the same time.
> 
> Hmph, do you mean 
> 
> 	git fetch --append remote-a & git fetch --append remote-b
> 
> or something else [*1*]?

> With the current write-out codepath, there is no guarantee that ...
> 
> > > +		fprintf(fetch_head->fp, "%s\t%s\t%s",
> > > +			old_oid, merge_status_marker, note);
> > > +		for (i = 0; i < url_len; ++i)
> > > +			if ('\n' == url[i])
> > > +				fputs("\\n", fetch_head->fp);
> > > +			else
> > > +				fputc(url[i], fetch_head->fp);
> > > +		fputc('\n', fetch_head->fp);
> 
> ... these stdio operations for a single record would result in a
> single atomic write() that would not compete with writes by other
> processes.  So I wouldn't call "the current design allows ... at the
> same time."  It has been broken for years and nobody complained.

> > If we change to
> > always accumulate first and flush once we're done, then we essentially
> > have a change in behaviour as FETCH_HEADs aren't written in an
> > interleaving fashion anymore, but only at the end.
> 
> I view it a good thing, actually, for another reason [*2*], but that
> would take a follow-up fix that is much more involved, so let's not
> go there (yet).  At least buffering a single line's worth of output
> in a buffer and writing it out in a single write() would get us much
> closer to solving the "mixed up output" from multiple processes
> problem the current code seems to already have.

> > Also, if there is any
> > unexpected error in between updating references which causes us to die,
> > then we wouldn't have written the already updated references to
> > FETCH_HEAD now.
> 
> That one may be a valid concern.
> 
> Thanks.

> 
> [Footnote]
> 
> *1* "git fetch --all/--multiple" was strictly serial operation to
>     avoid such a mixed-up output problem, but perhaps we weren't
>     careful enough when we introduced parallel fetch and broke it?
> 
> *2* When fetching from a single remote, the code makes sure that a
>     record that is not marked as 'not-for-merge' is listed first by
>     reordering the records, but it does not work well when fetching
>     from multiple remotes.  Queuing all in the buffer before showing
>     them would give us an opportunity to sort, but as I said, it
>     takes coordination among the processes---instead of each process
>     writing to FETCH_HEAD on their own, somebody has to collect the
>     records from them, reorder as needed and write them all out.
> 
>     cf. https://lore.kernel.org/git/X8oL190Vl03B0cQ%2F@coredump.intra.peff.net/
> 
>