threads / discuss / 42571

[PATCHv2] submodule--helper: initial clone learns retry logic

Subject: [PATCHv2] submodule--helper: initial clone learns retry logic

## tl;dr

2 messages between Jun 16, 2016 and Jun 16, 2016.

replies: 1people: 1as markdown or json

Stefan Beller· Jun 10, 2016, 00:35 UTC · lore

Each submodule that is attempted to be cloned, will be retried once in case of failure after all other submodules were cloned. This helps to mitigate ephemeral server failures and increases chances of a reliable clone of a repo with hundreds of submodules immensely.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
---
 This patch doesn't do pointer forbidden magic, also we don't abuse the
 prio queue.
 
 The API for running parallel commands isn't quite designed for this
 though as we need to pass around an int instead of a pointer, so we wrap
 the int into a int*, which will create a xmalloc/free for each submodule.
 
 This replaces the patch [1/2] in the series 
 "[PATCH 0/2] Dealing with a lot of submodules" 
 
 Thanks,
 Stefan
 builtin/submodule--helper.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
index c7deb55..6424b40 100644
--- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c
+++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
@@ -590,10 +590,14 @@ struct submodule_update_clone {
 
 	/* If we want to stop as fast as possible and return an error */
 	unsigned quickstop : 1;
+
+	/* failed clones to be retried again */
+	const struct cache_entry **failed_clones;
+	int failed_clones_nr, failed_clones_alloc;
 };
 #define SUBMODULE_UPDATE_CLONE_INIT {0, MODULE_LIST_INIT, 0, \
 	SUBMODULE_UPDATE_STRATEGY_INIT, 0, -1, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, \
-	STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP, 0}
+	STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP, 0, NULL, 0, 0}
 
 
 static void next_submodule_warn_missing(struct submodule_update_clone *suc,
@@ -718,23 +722,47 @@ cleanup:
 static int update_clone_get_next_task(struct child_process *child,
 				      struct strbuf *err,
 				      void *suc_cb,
-				      void **void_task_cb)
+				      void **idx_task_cb)
 {
 	struct submodule_update_clone *suc = suc_cb;
+	const struct cache_entry *ce;
+	int index;
 
 	for (; suc->current < suc->list.nr; suc->current++) {
-		const struct cache_entry *ce = suc->list.entries[suc->current];
+		ce = suc->list.entries[suc->current];
 		if (prepare_to_clone_next_submodule(ce, child, suc, err)) {
+			int *p = xmalloc(sizeof(*p));
+			*p = suc->current;
+			*idx_task_cb = p;
 			suc->current++;
 			return 1;
 		}
 	}
+
+	/*
+	 * The loop above tried cloning each submodule once, now try the
+	 * stragglers again, which we can imagine as an extension of the
+	 * entry list.
+	 */
+	index = suc->current - suc->list.nr;
+	if (index < suc->failed_clones_nr) {
+		int *p;
+		ce = suc->failed_clones[index];
+		if (!prepare_to_clone_next_submodule(ce, child, suc, err))
+			die("BUG: ce was a submodule before?");
+		p = xmalloc(sizeof(*p));
+		*p = suc->current;
+		*idx_task_cb = p;
+		suc->current ++;
+		return 1;
+	}
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
 static int update_clone_start_failure(struct strbuf *err,
 				      void *suc_cb,
-				      void *void_task_cb)
+				      void *idx_task_cb)
 {
 	struct submodule_update_clone *suc = suc_cb;
 	suc->quickstop = 1;
@@ -744,15 +772,39 @@ static int update_clone_start_failure(struct strbuf *err,
 static int update_clone_task_finished(int result,
 				      struct strbuf *err,
 				      void *suc_cb,
-				      void *void_task_cb)
+				      void *idx_task_cb)
 {
+	const struct cache_entry *ce;
 	struct submodule_update_clone *suc = suc_cb;
 
+	int *idxP = *(int**)idx_task_cb;
+	int idx = *idxP;
+	free(idxP);
+
 	if (!result)
 		return 0;
 
-	suc->quickstop = 1;
-	return 1;
+	if (idx < suc->list.nr) {
+		ce  = suc->list.entries[idx];
+		strbuf_addf(err, _("Failed to clone '%s'. Retry scheduled"),
+			    ce->name);
+		strbuf_addch(err, '\n');
+		ALLOC_GROW(suc->failed_clones,
+			   suc->failed_clones_nr + 1,
+			   suc->failed_clones_alloc);
+		suc->failed_clones[suc->failed_clones_nr++] = ce;
+		return 0;
+	} else {
+		idx = suc->current - suc->list.nr;
+		ce  = suc->failed_clones[idx];
+		strbuf_addf(err, _("Failed to clone '%s' a second time, aborting"),
+			    ce->name);
+		strbuf_addch(err, '\n');
+		suc->quickstop = 1;
+		return 1;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int update_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
-- 
2.9.0.rc2.365.gb48bdfb
Stefan Beller· Jun 10, 2016, 23:31 UTC · re: Stefan Beller · lore

Re: [PATCHv2] submodule--helper: initial clone learns retry logic

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
Show 93 quoted lines
> Each submodule that is attempted to be cloned, will be retried once in
> case of failure after all other submodules were cloned. This helps to
> mitigate ephemeral server failures and increases chances of a reliable
> clone of a repo with hundreds of submodules immensely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
> ---
>
>  This patch doesn't do pointer forbidden magic, also we don't abuse the
>  prio queue.
>
>  The API for running parallel commands isn't quite designed for this
>  though as we need to pass around an int instead of a pointer, so we wrap
>  the int into a int*, which will create a xmalloc/free for each submodule.
>
>  This replaces the patch [1/2] in the series
>  "[PATCH 0/2] Dealing with a lot of submodules"
>
>  Thanks,
>  Stefan
>
>  builtin/submodule--helper.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> index c7deb55..6424b40 100644
> --- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> +++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
> @@ -590,10 +590,14 @@ struct submodule_update_clone {
>
>         /* If we want to stop as fast as possible and return an error */
>         unsigned quickstop : 1;
> +
> +       /* failed clones to be retried again */
> +       const struct cache_entry **failed_clones;
> +       int failed_clones_nr, failed_clones_alloc;
>  };
>  #define SUBMODULE_UPDATE_CLONE_INIT {0, MODULE_LIST_INIT, 0, \
>         SUBMODULE_UPDATE_STRATEGY_INIT, 0, -1, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, \
> -       STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP, 0}
> +       STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP, 0, NULL, 0, 0}
>
>
>  static void next_submodule_warn_missing(struct submodule_update_clone *suc,
> @@ -718,23 +722,47 @@ cleanup:
>  static int update_clone_get_next_task(struct child_process *child,
>                                       struct strbuf *err,
>                                       void *suc_cb,
> -                                     void **void_task_cb)
> +                                     void **idx_task_cb)
>  {
>         struct submodule_update_clone *suc = suc_cb;
> +       const struct cache_entry *ce;
> +       int index;
>
>         for (; suc->current < suc->list.nr; suc->current++) {
> -               const struct cache_entry *ce = suc->list.entries[suc->current];
> +               ce = suc->list.entries[suc->current];
>                 if (prepare_to_clone_next_submodule(ce, child, suc, err)) {
> +                       int *p = xmalloc(sizeof(*p));
> +                       *p = suc->current;
> +                       *idx_task_cb = p;
>                         suc->current++;
>                         return 1;
>                 }
>         }
> +
> +       /*
> +        * The loop above tried cloning each submodule once, now try the
> +        * stragglers again, which we can imagine as an extension of the
> +        * entry list.
> +        */
> +       index = suc->current - suc->list.nr;
> +       if (index < suc->failed_clones_nr) {
> +               int *p;
> +               ce = suc->failed_clones[index];
> +               if (!prepare_to_clone_next_submodule(ce, child, suc, err))
> +                       die("BUG: ce was a submodule before?");
> +               p = xmalloc(sizeof(*p));
> +               *p = suc->current;
> +               *idx_task_cb = p;
> +               suc->current ++;
> +               return 1;
> +       }
> +
>         return 0;
>  }
>
>  static int update_clone_start_failure(struct strbuf *err,
>                                       void *suc_cb,
> -                                     void *void_task_cb)
> +                                     void *idx_task_cb)
>  {

Here we would leak the pointer, but as we quickstop soon, this may not be a problem.

Show 43 quoted lines
>         struct submodule_update_clone *suc = suc_cb;
>         suc->quickstop = 1;
> @@ -744,15 +772,39 @@ static int update_clone_start_failure(struct strbuf *err,
>  static int update_clone_task_finished(int result,
>                                       struct strbuf *err,
>                                       void *suc_cb,
> -                                     void *void_task_cb)
> +                                     void *idx_task_cb)
>  {
> +       const struct cache_entry *ce;
>         struct submodule_update_clone *suc = suc_cb;
>
> +       int *idxP = *(int**)idx_task_cb;
> +       int idx = *idxP;
> +       free(idxP);
> +
>         if (!result)
>                 return 0;
>
> -       suc->quickstop = 1;
> -       return 1;
> +       if (idx < suc->list.nr) {
> +               ce  = suc->list.entries[idx];
> +               strbuf_addf(err, _("Failed to clone '%s'. Retry scheduled"),
> +                           ce->name);
> +               strbuf_addch(err, '\n');
> +               ALLOC_GROW(suc->failed_clones,
> +                          suc->failed_clones_nr + 1,
> +                          suc->failed_clones_alloc);
> +               suc->failed_clones[suc->failed_clones_nr++] = ce;
> +               return 0;
> +       } else {
> +               idx = suc->current - suc->list.nr;
> +               ce  = suc->failed_clones[idx];
> +               strbuf_addf(err, _("Failed to clone '%s' a second time, aborting"),
> +                           ce->name);
> +               strbuf_addch(err, '\n');
> +               suc->quickstop = 1;
> +               return 1;
> +       }
> +
> +       return 0;
>  }

I wonder how we can test this properly as the git binary we have here is too reliable, but I observed the correctness of this patch when cloning a repo with lots of submodules and one of them failing.

Thanks, Stefan

← back to recent threads