# [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 12 messages from 2024-07-18 to 2024-07-19. Participants: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget, Junio C Hamano, Taylor Blau, Derrick Stolee. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/61806 ## Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget, 2024-07-18 19:55 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/pull.1764.git.1721332546.gitgitgadget%40gmail.com ``` Here is an issue I noticed while exploring issues with my local copy of a large monorepo. I was intending to show some engineers how nice the objects were maintained by background maintenance, but saw hundreds of small pack-files that were up to two months old. This time matched when I upgraded to the microsoft/git fork that included the 2.45.0 release of Git. The issue is that 'git multi-pack-index repack' was taught to call 'git pack-objects' with the new '--stdin-packs' option. However, this changes the object selection algorithm. Instead of using the objects referenced by the multi-pack-index, it compares pack-files using a list of "included" and "excluded" pack-files. This loses some granularity of how the multi-pack-index chooses among duplicate objects. The end result is that some objects that would normally have been included in the new pack-file are no longer included. The copy that the multi-pack-index references is in the pack-file that was intended to be repacked, so that pack-file cannot be expired in the next 'git multi-pack-index expire' step and is included again in the batch of objects to repack. In the context of the change that is reverted by this series, it seems the motivation of the change was two-fold: 1. some I/O benefits to using pack names over object names, and 2. the ability to use an object walk to improve delta compression. In my local prototyping, I've found that we could improve 'git pack-objects' to use an object walk when given a set of objects over stdin without needing to use pack-file names. I do not believe the '--stdin-packs' option should be used for the 'git multi-pack-index repack' mechanism, or at least should be done with great care and only in specific cases where some assumptions can be made around duplicate objects and closure under reachability. However, the prototype I've built to get these benefits is non-trivial due to working to guarantee that partial clones do not accidentally download missing blobs. That will follow in a separate series that can be reviewed at a slower pace. Thanks, -Stolee Derrick Stolee (2): t5319: add failing test case for repack/expire midx-write: revert use of --stdin-packs midx-write.c | 18 ++++++------ t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) base-commit: bea9ecd24b0c3bf06cab4a851694fe09e7e51408 Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1764%2Fderrickstolee%2Fincremental-repack-fix-v1 Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1764/derrickstolee/incremental-repack-fix-v1 Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1764 -- gitgitgadget ``` ## Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget, 2024-07-18 19:55 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] t5319: add failing test case for repack/expire Message-ID: <9b8e2012c9107f99e19c541113ae6a405e38a92f.1721332546.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/9b8e2012c9107f99e19c541113ae6a405e38a92f.1721332546.git.gitgitgadget%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` From: Derrick Stolee Git 2.45.0 included the change b7d6f23a171 (midx-write.c: use `--stdin-packs` when repacking, 2024-04-01) which caused the 'git multi-pack-index repack' command to use 'git pack-objects --stdin-packs' instead of listing the objects to repack. While this change was motivated by efficient cross-process communication and the ability to improve delta compression, it breaks a fundamental function of the 'incremental-repack' task that is enabled by default in Scalar clones or Git repositories that run 'git maintenance start'. The 'incremental-repack' task performs a two-step process of the 'expire' and 'repack' subcommands of the 'git multi-pack-index' builtin. The 'expire' command removes any pack-files listed in the multi-pack-index but without any referenced objects. The 'repack' task then finds a batch of pack-files to repack and sends their objects to 'git pack-objects'. Both the pack-files chosen for the batch and the objects chosen to repack are based on the ones that the multi-pack-index references. Objects that appear in a pack-file but have a duplicate copy in a newer pack-file are not considered in this case. Since the multi-pack-index references only the newest copy of an object, this allows the next 'incremental-repack' task to remove the pack-files in the next 'expire' task. This delay is intentional due to how Windows handles may block deletion of files with open read handles. However, the mentioned commit changed this behavior to divorce the set of objects referenced by the multi-pack-index and instead use a set of "included" and "excluded" pack-files in the 'git pack-objects' builtin. When a pack-file is selected as "included", only the objects it contains but are not in any "excluded" pack-files are considered for repacking. This has led to client repositories failing to remove old pack-files as they still have some referenced objects. This grows over time until the point that Git is trying to repack the same pack-files over and over. For now, create a test case that demonstrates the expected behavior, but also fails in its final line. The setup here it attempting to recreate a typical situation for a repository that uses a blobless partial clone. There would be a large initial pack-file from the clone that is never selected in the 'repack' batch. There are other pack-files that have a combination of new objects from incremental fetches and possibly blobs that are not connected to those incremental fetches; these blobs could be filled in from commands like 'git checkout' or 'git blame'. The pack-files also have some overlap on purpose so test-1 has some duplicates in test-2 and test-2 has some duplicates in test-3. At the end of the test, the test-2 pack-file still exists though it should have been expired. This test will pass when reverting the offending commit. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee --- t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh b/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh index dd09134db03..327376233c5 100755 --- a/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh +++ b/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh @@ -1004,6 +1004,61 @@ test_expect_success 'repack --batch-size= repacks everything' ' ) ' +test_expect_failure 'repack/expire loop' ' + git init repack-expire && + test_when_finished "rm -fr repack-expire" && + ( + cd repack-expire && + + test_commit_bulk 5 && + + # Create three overlapping pack-files + git rev-list --objects HEAD~3 >in-1 && + git rev-list --objects HEAD~4..HEAD~2 >in-2 && + git rev-list --objects HEAD~3..HEAD >in-3 && + + # Create disconnected blobs + obj1=$(git hash-object -w in-1) && + obj2=$(git hash-object -w in-2) && + obj3=$(git hash-object -w in-3) && + + echo $obj2 >>in-2 && + echo $obj3 >>in-3 && + + for i in $(test_seq 3) + do + git pack-objects .git/objects/pack/test-$i URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/ce1e495a730cb8c9319aaeddf341dce9a773e1e6.1721332546.git.gitgitgadget%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` From: Derrick Stolee This reverts b7d6f23a171 (midx-write.c: use `--stdin-packs` when repacking, 2024-04-01) and then marks the test created in the previous change as passing. The fundamental issue with the reverted change is that the focus on pack-files separates the object selection from how the multi-pack-index selects a single pack-file for an object ID with multiple copies among the tracked pack-files. The change was made with the intention of improving delta compression in the resulting pack-file, but that can be resolved with the existing object list mechanism. There are other potential pitfalls of doing an object walk at this time if the repository is a blobless partial clone, and that will require additional testing on top of the one that changes here. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee --- midx-write.c | 18 +++++++++--------- t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh | 2 +- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/midx-write.c b/midx-write.c index 65e69d2de78..960cc46250e 100644 --- a/midx-write.c +++ b/midx-write.c @@ -1474,8 +1474,7 @@ int midx_repack(struct repository *r, const char *object_dir, size_t batch_size, repo_config_get_bool(r, "repack.usedeltabaseoffset", &delta_base_offset); repo_config_get_bool(r, "repack.usedeltaislands", &use_delta_islands); - strvec_pushl(&cmd.args, "pack-objects", "--stdin-packs", "--non-empty", - NULL); + strvec_push(&cmd.args, "pack-objects"); strvec_pushf(&cmd.args, "%s/pack/pack", object_dir); @@ -1499,15 +1498,16 @@ int midx_repack(struct repository *r, const char *object_dir, size_t batch_size, } cmd_in = xfdopen(cmd.in, "w"); - for (i = 0; i < m->num_packs; i++) { - struct packed_git *p = m->packs[i]; - if (!p) + + for (i = 0; i < m->num_objects; i++) { + struct object_id oid; + uint32_t pack_int_id = nth_midxed_pack_int_id(m, i); + + if (!include_pack[pack_int_id]) continue; - if (include_pack[i]) - fprintf(cmd_in, "%s\n", pack_basename(p)); - else - fprintf(cmd_in, "^%s\n", pack_basename(p)); + nth_midxed_object_oid(&oid, m, i); + fprintf(cmd_in, "%s\n", oid_to_hex(&oid)); } fclose(cmd_in); diff --git a/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh b/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh index 327376233c5..5cce0be19e6 100755 --- a/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh +++ b/t/t5319-multi-pack-index.sh @@ -1004,7 +1004,7 @@ test_expect_success 'repack --batch-size= repacks everything' ' ) ' -test_expect_failure 'repack/expire loop' ' +test_expect_success 'repack/expire loop' ' git init repack-expire && test_when_finished "rm -fr repack-expire" && ( -- gitgitgadget ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2024-07-18 21:57 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqle1ynz18.fsf%40gitster.g In-Reply-To: ``` "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: > Here is an issue I noticed while exploring issues with my local copy of a > large monorepo. I was intending to show some engineers how nice the objects > were maintained by background maintenance, but saw hundreds of small > pack-files that were up to two months old. This time matched when I upgraded > to the microsoft/git fork that included the 2.45.0 release of Git. I almost said "wow, perfect timing on the -rc1 day", but then realized that this is not a regression during _this_ cycle, but a cycle ago. You already Cc'ed Taylor, whom I would have asked for help if I were the one who found this issue, which is good. Will queue. Thanks. ``` ## Taylor Blau, 2024-07-18 22:38 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/ZpmZVAL5MihrNVbN%40nand.local In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 02:57:55PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > You already Cc'ed Taylor, whom I would have asked for help if I were > the one who found this issue, which is good. It looks like there is a small typo in my email address as "me@ttayllorr.com" instead of "me@ttaylorr.com", but I saw the message anyway ;-). Thanks, Taylor ``` ## Taylor Blau, 2024-07-18 22:50 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/ZpmcK23coi5Qqm7E%40nand.local In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 07:55:44PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > The issue is that 'git multi-pack-index repack' was taught to call 'git > pack-objects' with the new '--stdin-packs' option. However, this changes the > object selection algorithm. Instead of using the objects referenced by the > multi-pack-index, it compares pack-files using a list of "included" and > "excluded" pack-files. This loses some granularity of how the > multi-pack-index chooses among duplicate objects. Thank you for looking at this so carefully! Let me double check my own understanding. Suppose we have a MIDX with some pack 'P' and say, some commit object 'C' which appears in that pack. Let's also suppose we have another pack 'Q' in the same MIDX which also contains 'C', but the MIDX selected its copy from pack 'P'. If we want to combine 'P' with some other packs (excluding 'Q'), then the input to --stdin-packs will look something like: P.pack ^Q.pack ... And the resulting pack would not contain 'C', since we would reject it via: add_object_entry_from_pack() -> want_object_in_pack() -> want_found_object() -> has_object_kept_pack(). The final function there would find a copy of 'C' in 'Q', and since 'Q' is excluded, we would reject 'C' as unwanted. So the resulting pack would not contain 'C', and the MIDX would hold onto its copy from pack 'P', resulting in 'P' being both (a) in the set of packs to repack together, but also (b) non-expireable, since it has at least one object selected from it in the MIDX. > The end result is that some objects that would normally have been included > in the new pack-file are no longer included. The copy that the > multi-pack-index references is in the pack-file that was intended to be > repacked, so that pack-file cannot be expired in the next 'git > multi-pack-index expire' step and is included again in the batch of objects > to repack. I think this matches my own understanding, but let me know if I'm missing something. Assuming I'm thinking about this the same way you are, the fix (stop using --stdin-packss) makes sense to me. Thanks, Taylor ``` ## Derrick Stolee, 2024-07-19 13:21 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 Message-ID: <118b164e-67c5-4dfc-b440-62b8986bf356@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/118b164e-67c5-4dfc-b440-62b8986bf356%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On 7/18/24 6:50 PM, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 07:55:44PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: >> The issue is that 'git multi-pack-index repack' was taught to call 'git >> pack-objects' with the new '--stdin-packs' option. However, this changes the >> object selection algorithm. Instead of using the objects referenced by the >> multi-pack-index, it compares pack-files using a list of "included" and >> "excluded" pack-files. This loses some granularity of how the >> multi-pack-index chooses among duplicate objects. > > Thank you for looking at this so carefully! Let me double check my own > understanding. > > Suppose we have a MIDX with some pack 'P' and say, some commit object > 'C' which appears in that pack. Let's also suppose we have another pack > 'Q' in the same MIDX which also contains 'C', but the MIDX selected its > copy from pack 'P'. > > If we want to combine 'P' with some other packs (excluding 'Q'), then > the input to --stdin-packs will look something like: > > P.pack > ^Q.pack > ... > > And the resulting pack would not contain 'C', since we would reject it > via: add_object_entry_from_pack() -> want_object_in_pack() -> > want_found_object() -> has_object_kept_pack(). The final function there > would find a copy of 'C' in 'Q', and since 'Q' is excluded, we would > reject 'C' as unwanted. > > So the resulting pack would not contain 'C', and the MIDX would hold > onto its copy from pack 'P', resulting in 'P' being both (a) in the set > of packs to repack together, but also (b) non-expireable, since it has > at least one object selected from it in the MIDX. > >> The end result is that some objects that would normally have been included >> in the new pack-file are no longer included. The copy that the >> multi-pack-index references is in the pack-file that was intended to be >> repacked, so that pack-file cannot be expired in the next 'git >> multi-pack-index expire' step and is included again in the batch of objects >> to repack. > > I think this matches my own understanding, but let me know if I'm > missing something. Assuming I'm thinking about this the same way you > are, the fix (stop using --stdin-packss) makes sense to me. Your interpretation matches mine. Thanks for the careful read. I think we can accomplish similar goals that match the reasoning for --stdin-packs (better deltas while also limiting the object walk to the repacked objects) with some changes to read_object_list_from_stdin(), but that's a more subtle kind of change. Taking this change as-is will cause a regression in the quality of delta choices, but recovers our ability to expire "repacked" pack-files in all cases. Thanks, -Stolee ``` ## Derrick Stolee, 2024-07-19 13:23 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 Message-ID: <4b154e61-a9ca-4c46-8548-b072d65a64b9@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4b154e61-a9ca-4c46-8548-b072d65a64b9%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On 7/18/24 6:38 PM, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 02:57:55PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> You already Cc'ed Taylor, whom I would have asked for help if I were >> the one who found this issue, which is good. > > It looks like there is a small typo in my email address as > "me@ttayllorr.com" instead of "me@ttaylorr.com", but I saw the message > anyway ;-). Whoops! Sorry about that. Repeated too many letters. I've fixed the GitGitGadget cover letter in case a v2 is required. Thanks, -Stolee ``` ## Derrick Stolee, 2024-07-19 13:24 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 Message-ID: <81c7bd02-0c2d-452f-800e-ca0d3853a941@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/81c7bd02-0c2d-452f-800e-ca0d3853a941%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On 7/18/24 5:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: > >> Here is an issue I noticed while exploring issues with my local copy of a >> large monorepo. I was intending to show some engineers how nice the objects >> were maintained by background maintenance, but saw hundreds of small >> pack-files that were up to two months old. This time matched when I upgraded >> to the microsoft/git fork that included the 2.45.0 release of Git. > > I almost said "wow, perfect timing on the -rc1 day", but then > realized that this is not a regression during _this_ cycle, but a > cycle ago. I almost waited until after the release, but I wanted to put the information out there just in case you were interested in taking it into 2.46.0 or were planning on a 2.45.3. Thanks, -Stolee ``` ## Taylor Blau, 2024-07-19 13:38 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/ZppsWZ6u05U65Blp%40nand.local In-Reply-To: <118b164e-67c5-4dfc-b440-62b8986bf356@gmail.com> ``` On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 09:21:51AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 7/18/24 6:50 PM, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > I think this matches my own understanding, but let me know if I'm > > missing something. Assuming I'm thinking about this the same way you > > are, the fix (stop using --stdin-packss) makes sense to me. > > Your interpretation matches mine. Thanks for the careful read. > > I think we can accomplish similar goals that match the reasoning for > --stdin-packs (better deltas while also limiting the object walk to the > repacked objects) with some changes to read_object_list_from_stdin(), > but that's a more subtle kind of change. FWIW, the main motivation for that change was to limit the amount of cross-process I/O that was necessary to generate the new pack. I figured that for relatively small amounts of packs which contain relatively large amounts of objects that it would be more efficient to write out the pack names than the object names. I was thinking a little bit about how we would alter the behavior of '--stdin-packs' to match what the 'multi-pack-index repack' caller needs. I agree that it is possible, and I doubly agree that it is subtle ;-). TBH, I think that the amount of I/O we're potentially saving is dwarfed by the amount of I/O and CPU time it takes to actually generate the new pack, so I doubt the effort to make such a subtle change would be all that worthwhile, though certainly an interesting exercise ;-). > Taking this change as-is will cause a regression in the quality of > delta choices, but recovers our ability to expire "repacked" pack-files > in all cases. Yeah, definitely. Thanks, Taylor ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2024-07-19 15:13 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqq34o5l8j7.fsf%40gitster.g In-Reply-To: <81c7bd02-0c2d-452f-800e-ca0d3853a941@gmail.com> ``` Derrick Stolee writes: > On 7/18/24 5:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: >> >>> Here is an issue I noticed while exploring issues with my local copy of a >>> large monorepo. I was intending to show some engineers how nice the objects >>> were maintained by background maintenance, but saw hundreds of small >>> pack-files that were up to two months old. This time matched when I upgraded >>> to the microsoft/git fork that included the 2.45.0 release of Git. >> I almost said "wow, perfect timing on the -rc1 day", but then >> realized that this is not a regression during _this_ cycle, but a >> cycle ago. > > I almost waited until after the release, but I wanted to put the > information out there just in case you were interested in taking it > into 2.46.0 or were planning on a 2.45.3. Yup, thanks but this is not exactly a repository breaking data corruption bug, and did not look ultra urgent. Especially if we want to pursue a solution that helps both expiring stale packs better (which is what you are restoring) and making better delta chain selection (which may be what you are losing) at the same time, such a change could become a source of data corruption bug, so I'd prefer to see it started early in a cycle, rather as a last-minute "let's fix this too". Thanks. ``` ## Derrick Stolee, 2024-07-19 16:20 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix background maintenance regression in Git 2.45.0 Message-ID: <861420aa-e423-4475-8eba-8ec5187c52d4@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/861420aa-e423-4475-8eba-8ec5187c52d4%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On 7/19/24 11:13 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Derrick Stolee writes: > >> On 7/18/24 5:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: >>> >>>> Here is an issue I noticed while exploring issues with my local copy of a >>>> large monorepo. I was intending to show some engineers how nice the objects >>>> were maintained by background maintenance, but saw hundreds of small >>>> pack-files that were up to two months old. This time matched when I upgraded >>>> to the microsoft/git fork that included the 2.45.0 release of Git. >>> I almost said "wow, perfect timing on the -rc1 day", but then >>> realized that this is not a regression during _this_ cycle, but a >>> cycle ago. >> >> I almost waited until after the release, but I wanted to put the >> information out there just in case you were interested in taking it >> into 2.46.0 or were planning on a 2.45.3. > > Yup, thanks but this is not exactly a repository breaking data > corruption bug, and did not look ultra urgent. Especially if we > want to pursue a solution that helps both expiring stale packs > better (which is what you are restoring) and making better delta > chain selection (which may be what you are losing) at the same time, > such a change could become a source of data corruption bug, so I'd > prefer to see it started early in a cycle, rather as a last-minute > "let's fix this too". I agree with this assessment. The microsoft/git fork has taken the revert as users of that fork have a higher chance of being affected. Thanks, -Stolee ```