Re: [PATCH v2] read_index_from(): Skip verification of the cache entry order to speed index loading

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 10/30/2017 9:49 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ben Peart <peartben@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Any updates or thoughts on this one?  While the patch has become quite
trivial, it does results in a savings of 5%-15% in index load time.

I thought the compromise of having this test only run when DEBUG is
defined should limit it to developer builds (hopefully everyone
developing on git is running DEBUG builds :)).  Since the test is
trying to detect buggy code when writing the index, I thought that was
the right time to test/catch any issues.

This check is more about catching a possible breakage (and a
malicious repository) early before we go too far into the operation.
I do not think this check is about debugging the implementation of
Git.  How would it be useful to turn it on in DEBUG build?

While I do think pursuing any runtime improvements better than a
couple of percents is worth it, I do not think the approach taken by
this iteration makes much sense; the previous one that at least
allowed fsck to catch breakage may have been already too leaky to
catch real issues (i.e. when you are asked to visit and look at an
unknown repository, you wouldn't start your session with "git fsck"
to protect yourself), and this round makes it much worse.

Besides, I see no -DDEBUG from "grep -e '-D[A-Z]*DEBUG' Makefile".
If this check were about allowing us easier time debugging the
binary (which I do not think it is), this probably should be
'#ifndef NDEBUG' instead.


I've tried 3 different ways to remove the overhead of this call from regular git operations.

The first was version 1 of the patch which had fsck catch breakage but removed it from other commands that read the index. Since that version was not accepted, I took the feedback "I think I like the direction of getting rid of the order in post_read_index_from(), not only during the normal but also in fsck" to come up with a version 2.

I was hesitant to remove the code completely as I did believe it had some value in detecting invalid indexes so went looking for a macro I could use to have it 1) not happen during regular user commands but 2) still happen for developers.

The NDEBUG macro is guaranteed by the C89 standard (http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c89/c89-draft.html#4.1.2 ) to guard the code that is only necessary when assertions are in effect so seemed like a good choice. When I used it however, I discovered that the git Makefile does not define NDEBUG so using this macro did not have any effect thus making the patch useless as the code continues to run in all cases.

On a side note, there are 434 instances of assert which up until this experience I believed were being removed in released builds. As far as I can tell, that is not the case. If removing them is the desired/expected behavior, we need to fix our Makefile as it only currently defines NDEBUG if USE_NED_ALLOCATOR is defined.

I then searched the code and found 47 instances where the macro DEBUG was used. I (incorrectly) assumed that meant it must be used by other git developers. I personally have a build alias that adds "-j12 CFLAGS=-DDEBUG" to my make command but apparently I'm in the minority. :)

This assumption led me to the patch version 2 (guarding the code with #ifdef DEBUG) as it does meet the request to remove it during normal but also fsck and does so with regular/release builds as they are currently defined.

It seems that the current round of feedback is more in favor of leaving the test in fsck but removing it for other commands. If that is the desired behavior, please use version 1 of the patch.

I'm also happy to flip this to "#ifndef NDEBUG" but that only makes sense if the released builds actually set NDEBUG which (I believe) will require a patch to Makefile.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux