On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:04 AM, <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> > > Git's clean/smudge mechanism invokes an external filter process for every > single blob that is affected by a filter. If Git filters a lot of blobs > then the startup time of the external filter processes can become a > significant part of the overall Git execution time. > > In a preliminary performance test this developer used a clean/smudge filter > written in golang to filter 12,000 files. This process took 364s with the > existing filter mechanism and 5s with the new mechanism. See details here: > https://github.com/github/git-lfs/pull/1382 > > This patch adds the `filter.<driver>.process` string option which, if used, > keeps the external filter process running and processes all blobs with > the packet format (pkt-line) based protocol over standard input and standard > output described below. > > Git starts the filter when it encounters the first file > that needs to be cleaned or smudged. After the filter started > Git sends a welcome message, a list of supported protocol > version numbers, and a flush packet. Git expects to read the > welcome message and one protocol version number from the > previously sent list. Afterwards Git sends a list of supported > capabilities and a flush packet. Git expects to read a list of > desired capabilities, which must be a subset of the supported > capabilities list, and a flush packet as response: > ------------------------ > packet: git> git-filter-client > packet: git> version=2 > packet: git> version=42 > packet: git> 0000 > packet: git< git-filter-server > packet: git< version=2 what follows is specific to version=2? version 42 may deem capabilities a bad idea? > packet: git> clean=true > packet: git> smudge=true > packet: git> not-yet-invented=true > packet: git> 0000 > packet: git< clean=true > packet: git< smudge=true > packet: git< 0000 > ------------------------ > Supported filter capabilities in version 2 are "clean" and > "smudge". I assume version 2 is an example here and we actually start with v1? Can you clarify why we need welcome messages? (Is there a technical reason, or better debuggability for humans?) > > Afterwards Git sends a list of "key=value" pairs terminated with > a flush packet. The list will contain at least the filter command > (based on the supported capabilities) and the pathname of the file > to filter relative to the repository root. Right after these packets > Git sends the content split in zero or more pkt-line packets and a > flush packet to terminate content. > ------------------------ > packet: git> command=smudge\n > packet: git> pathname=path/testfile.dat\n > packet: git> 0000 > packet: git> CONTENT > packet: git> 0000 > ------------------------ > > The filter is expected to respond with a list of "key=value" pairs > terminated with a flush packet. If the filter does not experience > problems then the list must contain a "success" status. Right after > these packets the filter is expected to send the content in zero > or more pkt-line packets and a flush packet at the end. Finally, a > second list of "key=value" pairs terminated with a flush packet > is expected. The filter can change the status in the second list. > ------------------------ > packet: git< status=success\n > packet: git< 0000 > packet: git< SMUDGED_CONTENT > packet: git< 0000 > packet: git< 0000 # empty list! > ------------------------ > > If the result content is empty then the filter is expected to respond > with a success status and an empty list. > ------------------------ > packet: git< status=success\n > packet: git< 0000 > packet: git< 0000 # empty content! > packet: git< 0000 # empty list! > ------------------------ Why do we need the last flush packet? We'd expect as many successes as we send out contents? Do we plan on interleaving operation, i.e. Git sends out 10 files but the filter process is not as fast as Git sending out and the answers trickle in slowly? > > In case the filter cannot or does not want to process the content, > it is expected to respond with an "error" status. Depending on the > `filter.<driver>.required` flag Git will interpret that as error > but it will not stop or restart the filter process. > ------------------------ > packet: git< status=error\n > packet: git< 0000 > ------------------------ > > In case the filter cannot or does not want to process the content > as well as any future content for the lifetime of the Git process, > it is expected to respond with an "error-all" status. Depending on > the `filter.<driver>.required` flag Git will interpret that as error > but it will not stop or restart the filter process. > ------------------------ > packet: git< status=error-all\n > packet: git< 0000 > ------------------------ > > If the filter experiences an error during processing, then it can > send the status "error". Depending on the `filter.<driver>.required` > flag Git will interpret that as error but it will not stop or restart > the filter process. > ------------------------ > packet: git< status=success\n So the first success is meaningless essentially? Would it make sense to move the sucess behind the content sending in all cases? > packet: git< 0000 > packet: git< HALF_WRITTEN_ERRONEOUS_CONTENT > packet: git< 0000 > packet: git< status=error\n > packet: git< 0000 > ------------------------ > > If the filter dies during the communication or does not adhere to > the protocol then Git will stop the filter process and restart it > with the next file that needs to be processed. > > After the filter has processed a blob it is expected to wait for > the next "key=value" list containing a command. When the Git process > terminates, it will send a kill signal to the filter in that stage. > > If a `filter.<driver>.clean` or `filter.<driver>.smudge` command > is configured then these commands always take precedence over > a configured `filter.<driver>.process` command. okay. I think you can omit most of the commit message as it is a duplicate of the documentation? Instead the commit message can answer questions that are not part of the documentation. (See the questions above which can be summarized as "Why do we do it this way and not differently?") > + if (err || errno == EPIPE) { > + if (!strcmp(filter_status.buf, "error")) { > + /* > + * The filter signaled a problem with the file. > + */ /* This could go into a single line comment. */ > + } else if (!strcmp(filter_status.buf, "error-all")) { > + /* > + * The filter signaled a permanent problem. Don't try to filter > + * files with the same command for the lifetime of the current > + * Git process. > + */ > + entry->supported_capabilities &= ~wanted_capability; > + } else { > + /* > + * Something went wrong with the protocol filter. > + * Force shutdown and restart if another blob requires filtering! > + */ > + error("external filter '%s' failed", cmd); failed .. Can you give more information to the user such that they can easier debug? (blob/path or state / expected state) > + > static int read_convert_config(const char *var, const char *value, void *cb) > { > const char *key, *name; > @@ -526,6 +818,10 @@ static int read_convert_config(const char *var, const char *value, void *cb) > if (!strcmp("clean", key)) > return git_config_string(&drv->clean, var, value); > > + if (!strcmp("process", key)) { > + return git_config_string(&drv->process, var, value); > + } optional nit: braces unnecessary Thanks, Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html