Re: [PATCH 4/5] commit-graph: be extra careful about mixed generations
- From
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
- Date
- Feb 1, 2021, 18:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <YBhChR3ReDhAde87@nand.local>
- In-Reply-To
- <b267a9653a7560d1e59708f20106ef054d140a9f.1612199707.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 05:15:06PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
Show 56 quoted lines
> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
>
> When upgrading to a commit-graph with corrected commit dates from
> one without, there are a few things that need to be considered.
>
> When computing generation numbers for the new commit-graph file that
> expects to add the generation_data chunk with corrected commit
> dates, we need to ensure that the 'generation' member of the
> commit_graph_data struct is set to zero for these commits.
>
> Unfortunately, the fallback to use topological level for generation
> number when corrected commit dates are not available are causing us
> harm here: parsing commits notices that read_generation_data is
> false and populates 'generation' with the topological level.
>
> The solution is to iterate through the commits, parse the commits
> to populate initial values, then reset the generation values to
> zero to trigger recalculation. This loop only occurs when the
> existing commit-graph data has no corrected commit dates.
>
> While this improves our situation somewhat, we have not completely
> solved the issue for correctly computing generation numbers for mixes
> layers. That follows in the next change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
> ---
> commit-graph.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
> index 13992137dd0..08148dd17f1 100644
> --- a/commit-graph.c
> +++ b/commit-graph.c
> @@ -1033,7 +1033,8 @@ struct write_commit_graph_context {
> split:1,
> changed_paths:1,
> order_by_pack:1,
> - write_generation_data:1;
> + write_generation_data:1,
> + trust_generation_numbers:1;
>
> struct topo_level_slab *topo_levels;
> const struct commit_graph_opts *opts;
> @@ -1452,6 +1453,15 @@ static void compute_generation_numbers(struct write_commit_graph_context *ctx)
> ctx->progress = start_delayed_progress(
> _("Computing commit graph generation numbers"),
> ctx->commits.nr);
> +
> + if (ctx->write_generation_data && !ctx->trust_generation_numbers) {
> + for (i = 0; i < ctx->commits.nr; i++) {
> + struct commit *c = ctx->commits.list[i];
> + repo_parse_commit(ctx->r, c);
> + commit_graph_data_at(c)->generation = GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO;
> + }
> + }
> +This took me a while to figure out since I spent quite a lot of time thinking that you were setting the topological level to zero, _not_ the corrected committer date.
Now that I understand which is which, I agree that this is the right way to go forward.
That said, I do find it unnecessarily complex that we compute both the generation number and the topological level in the same loops in compute_generation_numbers()...
Show 10 quoted lines
> for (i = 0; i < ctx->commits.nr; i++) {
> struct commit *c = ctx->commits.list[i];
> uint32_t level;
> @@ -1480,7 +1490,8 @@ static void compute_generation_numbers(struct write_commit_graph_context *ctx)
> corrected_commit_date = commit_graph_data_at(parent->item)->generation;
>
> if (level == GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO ||
> - corrected_commit_date == GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO) {
> + (ctx->write_generation_data &&
> + corrected_commit_date == GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO)) {...for exactly reasons like this. It does make sense that they could be computed together since their computation is indeed quite similar. But in practice I think you end up spending a lot of time reasoning around complex conditionals like these.
So, I feel a little bit like we should spend some effort to split these up. I'm OK with a little bit of code duplication (though if we can factor out some common routine, that would also be nice). But I think there's a tradeoff between DRY-ness and understandability, and that we might be on the wrong side of it here.
Show 22 quoted lines
> all_parents_computed = 0;
> commit_list_insert(parent->item, &list);
> break;
> @@ -1500,12 +1511,15 @@ static void compute_generation_numbers(struct write_commit_graph_context *ctx)
> max_level = GENERATION_NUMBER_V1_MAX - 1;
> *topo_level_slab_at(ctx->topo_levels, current) = max_level + 1;
>
> - if (current->date && current->date > max_corrected_commit_date)
> - max_corrected_commit_date = current->date - 1;
> - commit_graph_data_at(current)->generation = max_corrected_commit_date + 1;
> -
> - if (commit_graph_data_at(current)->generation - current->date > GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_OFFSET_MAX)
> - ctx->num_generation_data_overflows++;
> + if (ctx->write_generation_data) {
> + timestamp_t cur_g;
> + if (current->date && current->date > max_corrected_commit_date)
> + max_corrected_commit_date = current->date - 1;
> + cur_g = commit_graph_data_at(current)->generation
> + = max_corrected_commit_date + 1;
> + if (cur_g - current->date > GENERATION_NUMBER_V2_OFFSET_MAX)
> + ctx->num_generation_data_overflows++;
> + }Looks like two things happened here:
- A new local variable was introduced to store the value of
'commit_graph_data_at(current)->generation' (now called 'cur_g'),
and - All of this was guarded by a conditional on
'ctx->write_generation_data'.The first one is a readability improvement, and the second is the substantive one, no?
Show 11 quoted lines
> } > } > } > @@ -2396,7 +2410,7 @@ int write_commit_graph(struct object_directory *odb, > } else > ctx->num_commit_graphs_after = 1; > > - validate_mixed_generation_chain(ctx->r->objects->commit_graph); > + ctx->trust_generation_numbers = validate_mixed_generation_chain(ctx->r->objects->commit_graph); > > compute_generation_numbers(ctx);
Makes sense.
Thanks, Taylor