Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 5/4/2018 3:40 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> >> With early parts of commit-graph feature (ds/commit-graph and >> ds/lazy-load-trees) close to being merged into "master", see >> https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqq4ljtz87g.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> I think it would be good idea to think what other data could be added >> there to make Git even faster. > > Before thinking about adding more data to the commit-graph, I think > instead we need to finish taking advantage of the data that is already > there. This means landing the generation number patch [1] (I think > this is close, so I'll send a v6 this week if there is no new > feedback.) and the auto-compute patch [2] (this could use more > feedback, but I'll send a v1 based on the RFC feedback if no one > chimes in). > > [1] > https://public-inbox.org/git/20180501124652.155781-1-dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > [PATCH v5 00/11] Compute and consume generation numbers > > [2] > https://public-inbox.org/git/20180417181028.198397-1-dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > [RFC PATCH 00/12] Integrate commit-graph into 'fsck' and 'gc' Right, so the RFC might be a bit premature; I wanted the discussion to be out there to think about when adding new uses of existing features. DIGRESSION: it is commendable that you are sending patches in small, easy digestible chunks / patch series. It is much easier to review 10+ series than 80+ behemoth (though I understand it is not always possible to subdivide patch series into smaller self-contained sub-series). On the other hand, it would be nice to have some roadmap about series and features to be sent in the future, if possible. Something like what was done when 'git rebase --interactive' was getting builtinified: moved (in parts) to C. It would be great to have such roadmap with milestones achieved and milestones to be done in the cover letter for series. > The big wins remaining from this data are `git tag --merged` and `git > log --graph`. The `tag` scenario is probably easier: this can be done > by replacing the revision-walk underlying the call to use > paint_down_to_common() instead. Requires adding an external method to > commit.c, but not too much code. I wonder if there is some significant reason behind `git tag --merged` using its own codepath, beside historical reasons. Maybe performance is better with current code? Utilizing paint_down_to_common() there, beside reducing amount of code you would have to modify, would also unify code (and possibly reduce amount of code). That's very nice. > > The tougher challenge is `git log --graph`. The revision walk > machinery currently uses two precompute phases before iterating > results to the pager: limit_list() and sort_in_topological_order(); > these correspond to two phases of Kahn's algorithm for topo-sort > (compute in-degrees, then walk by peeling commits with in-degree > zero). This requires O(N) time, where N is the number of reachable > commits. Instead, we could make this be O(W) time to output one page > of results, where W is (roughly) the number of reachable commits with > generation number above the last reported result. A reminder: Kahn's algorithm (described for example in [1] and [3]) looks like this: L ← Empty list that will contain the sorted elements S ← Collection of all nodes with no incoming edge while S is non-empty do remove a node 'n' from S add 'n' to tail of L for each parent 'm' of 'n' do decrease the in-degree of 'm' if 'm' has in-degree of 0 then insert 'm' into S [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_sorting#Kahn's_algorithm [2]: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/topological-sorting-indegree-based-solution/ > In order to take advantage of this approach, the two phases of Kahn's > algorithm need to be done in-line with reporting results to the > pager. This means keeping two queues: one is a priority queue by > generation number that computes in-degrees, This simple solition of using priority queue by generation number won't work, I think. In-degree is computed from heads down, generation number is computed from roots up. For example in the graph below *<---*<---*<---*<---*<---*<---*<---*<---*<---A \ \--*<---B both A and B have in-degree of 0, but gen(B) << gen(A). But I might be wrong. > the other is a priority > queue (by commit-date or a visit-order value to do the --topo-order > priority) that peels the in-degree-zero commits (and decrements the > in-degree of their parents). I have not begun this refactoring effort > because appears complicated to me, and it will be hard to tease out > the logic without affecting other consumers of the revision-walk > machinery. > > I would love it if someone picked up the `git log --graph` task, since > it will be a few weeks before I have the time to focus on it. Let's assume that we have extra data (indexes such as generation number) that can be used for positive-cut (we know that A can reach B) and negative-cut (we know that A cannot reach B) filters. Generation number aka. topological level can be used in negative-cut filter. NOTE: I have not looked at current Git code that does topological sorting, as to not be suggested by the existing implementation. How the indexes-amplified incremental Kahn's algorithm could look like: First we need to find at least one node / vertex / commit with an in-degree of zero. We are given a list of commits to start from, but they may not all have in-degree of zero - they may be dependent, or in other words some of them may be reachable from others and be irrelevant. Here negative-cut and positive-cut filters can help. If the order of commits on command line does not matter, we can start from any distinct commit with highest generation number - we know that it cannot be reached from other heads / refs and thus has in-degree of zero. L ← Empty list that will contain the sorted elements S ← Collection of all nodes with no incoming edge R ← Collection of starting points (refs) while S is non-empty do remove a node 'n' from S add 'n' to tail of L for each parent 'm' of 'n' do if 'm' cannot be reached from R then # it has in-degree of 0 insert 'm' into S else if 'm' can be reached from R then # it has in-degree greater than 0 insert 'm' into R else walk from each 'r of R, until we know if 'm' is reachable from R then insert it into S or R perhaps computing in-degrees, or marking commits as reachable... Does it looks correct? I can try to make this pseudocode into actual algorithm. > > Without completing the benefits we get from generation numbers, these > investigations into other reachability indexes will be incomplete as > they are comparing benefits without all consumers taking advantage of > a reachability index. On one hand side, you are right: if we try to investigate of some reachability index is worth it by checking if it *improves performance of actual git operations* without all consumers taking advantage of a reachability index would be incomplete. On the other hand we can still perform synthetic tests: how much less commits we walk when checking that A can reach B on real commit graphs (like I did in mentioned Google Colaboratory notebook [3]). This assumes that the cost of accessing commit data (and possibly also indexes data) dominates, and the cost of using reachability indexes is negligible. [3]: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1V-U7_slu5Z3s5iEEMFKhLXtaxSu5xyzg On the gripping hand the construction of algorithms in those future steps would be, I think, affected by what types of indexes would we have: negative-cut filters, positive-cut filters, reachability bitmaps, Bloom filters for changed files, eic. > [...] >> Bloom filter for changed paths >> ------------------------------ >> >> The goal of this chunk is to speed up checking if the file or directory >> was changed in given commit, for queries such as "git log -- <file>" or >> "git blame <file>". This is something that according to "Git Merge >> contributor summit notes" [2] is already present in VSTS (Visual Studio >> Team Services - the server counterpart of GVFS: Git Virtual File System) >> at Microsoft: >> >> AV> - VSTS adds bloom filters to know which paths have changed on the commit >> AV> - tree-same check in the bloom filter is fast; speeds up file history checks >> AV> - might be useful in the client as well, since limited-traversal is common >> AV> - if the file history is _very_ sparse, then bloom filter is useful >> AV> - but needs pre-compute, so useful to do once >> AV> - first make the client do it, then think about how to serve it centrally >> >> [2]: https://public-inbox.org/git/alpine.DEB.2.20.1803091557510.23109@alexmv-linux/ >> >> I think it was what Derrick Stolee was talking about at the end of his >> part of "Making Git for Windows" presentation at Git Merge 2018: >> https://youtu.be/oOMzi983Qmw?t=1835 >> >> This was also mentioned in subthread of "Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Lazy-load >> trees when reading commit-graph", starting from [3] >> [3]: https://public-inbox.org/git/86y3hyeu6c.fsf@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Again, the benefits of Bloom filters should only be measured after > already taking advantage of a reachability index during `git > log`. However, you could get performance benefits from Bloom filters > in a normal `git log` (no topo-order). I wonder how much they improve performance of "git blame"... > The tricky part about this feature is that the decisions we made in > our C# implementation for the VSTS Git server may be very different > than the needs for the C implementation of the Git client. Questions > like "how do we handle merge commits?" may have different answers, > which can only be discovered by implementing the feature. > > (The answer for VSTS is that we only store Bloom filters containing > the list of changed paths against the first parent. The second parent > frequently has too many different paths, and if we are computing > file-history simplification we have already determined the first > parent is _not_ TREESAME, which requires verifying the difference by > parsing trees against the first parent.) Thanks for the information. I think for now it is sufficient level of the detail. > I'm happy to provide more information on how we built this feature if > someone is writing a patch. Otherwise, I plan to implement it after > finishing the parts I think are higher priority. All right, I understand that. Time is a scarse resource. I think that, beside writing patches for Git, exploring how various pieces of data and various indexes affect walking commit graphs is also important. My explorations shown that, for example, that FELINE index is not good fit for relatively "narrow" graphs of revision history. Exploring this in Python / Jupyter is easier than trying to write a exploratory patch for Git, in my opinion. Just IMVHO. Best, -- Jakub Narębski
