Re: [PATCH 2/2] builtin/pack-objects.c: ensure pack validity from MIDX bitmap objects
- From
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
- Date
- May 14, 2022, 13:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Yn+r4lPi8vNK/qFG@nand.local>
- In-Reply-To
- <20220513230639.1099955-1-jonathantanmy@google.com>
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 04:06:39PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes: > > An alternative approach to closing this race would have been to call > > `is_pack_valid()` on _all_ packs in a multi-pack bitmap on load. This > > has a couple of problems: > > > > - it is unnecessarily expensive in the cases where we don't actually > > need to open any packs (e.g., in `git rev-list --use-bitmap-index > > --count`) > > > > - more importantly, it means any time we would have hit this race, > > we'll avoid using bitmaps altogether, leading to significant > > slowdowns by forcing a full object traversal > > This answers a question I had about why we're only opening the preferred > pack instead of all packs. (You mention in [1] that it's also answered > in that patch message, but I didn't see it.) In any case, it might be > clearer to move this part to the 1st commit. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/Yn63nDhSBIEa3%2F+%2F@nand.local/
Makes sense, will do. In [1] I was referring to why we wanted to call `is_pack_valid()` as early as we did, and not in `reuse_partial_packfile_from_bitmap()`.
But the quoted part here is useful context for the first patch, too, so I moved it up.
Show 20 quoted lines
> > Work around this by calling `is_pack_valid()` from within > > `want_found_object()`, matching the behavior in > > `want_object_in_pack_one()` (which has an analogous call). Most calls to > > `is_pack_valid()` should be basically no-ops, since only the first call > > requires us to open a file (subsequent calls realize the file is already > > open, and return immediately). > > > > This does require us to make a small change in > > `want_object_in_pack_one()`, since `want_found_object()` may return `-1` > > (indicating "keep searching for other packs containing this object") > > when `*found_pack` is non-NULL. Force `want_object_in_pack_one()` to > > call `is_pack_valid()` when `p != *found_pack`, not just when > > `*found_pack` is non-NULL. > > It took me a while to realize that the relevant want_found_object() > invocation that may return -1 is not the one in > want_object_in_pack_one(), but in the latter's caller > want_object_in_pack(). But even in this case, couldn't > want_found_object() return -1 (see the very end of the function) even > before this patch?
Perhaps changing the parenthetical to be:
(indicating that `want_object_in_pack()` should continue searching
for other packs containing this object)Yes, `want_found_object()` could have returned -1 before, but the only time when `*found_pack != NULL` and `want_found_object()` would have returned -1 is when given `--local` with at least one non-local pack.
I actually think it's possible we have a bug there, since AFAICT the pre-image of this patch would have left the non-NULL `*found_pack` alone but picked a copy of the given object from a _different_ pack. So I think this change inadvertently resolves that bug.
Show 30 quoted lines
> > @@ -1424,14 +1427,15 @@ static int want_object_in_pack_one(struct packed_git *p,
> > off_t *found_offset)
> > {
> > off_t offset;
> > + int use_found = p == *found_pack;
> >
> > - if (p == *found_pack)
> > + if (use_found)
> > offset = *found_offset;
> > else
> > offset = find_pack_entry_one(oid->hash, p);
> >
> > if (offset) {
> > - if (!*found_pack) {
> > + if (!use_found) {
> > if (!is_pack_valid(p))
> > return -1;
> > *found_offset = offset;
>
> My understanding of the purpose of this code change is that if we reach
> here with a non-NULL *found_pack, it is likely that *found_pack contains
> an invalid pack, and this part overwrites *found_pack (and
> *found_offset) if it finds a valid pack. This seems like a good change,
> but I don't see how this is a result of something that "does require
> us" (as far as I can tell, *found_pack could have already been invalid
> before this patch, so the downstream code should already be able to
> handle it). Maybe it's just that we couldn't tell if the pack is invalid
> previously, but now we can; but if so, it would be better to say "use
> this added information to overwrite *found_pack when it makes sense" or
> something like that.I think my reply above indicates why this change is necessary, but if we're talking about separate issues, let me know.
Thanks, Taylor