On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 06:24:58PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> When unpack_trees() constructs a new index, it copies cache entries
> from the original index [1]. prepare_to_write_split_index() has to
> deal with this, and it has a dedicated code path for copied entries
> that are present in the shared index, where it compares the cached
> data in the corresponding copied and original entries. If the cached
> data matches, then they are considered the same; if it differs, then
> the copied entry will be marked for inclusion as a replacement entry
> in the just about to be written split index by setting the
> CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag.
>
> However, a cache entry already has its CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag set upon
> reading the split index, if the entry already has a replacement entry
> there, or upon refreshing the cached stat data, if the corresponding
> file was modified. The state of this flag is then preserved when
> unpack_trees() copies a cache entry from the shared index.
>
> So modify prepare_to_write_split_index() to check the copied cache
> entries' CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag first, and skip the thorough
> comparison of cached data if the flag is already set.
OK so this is an optimization, not a bug fix. Right?
> Note that comparing the cached data in copied and original entries in
s/cached data/cached stat data/ ? I was confused for a bit.
> the shared index might actually be entirely unnecessary. In theory
> all code paths refreshing the cached stat data of an entry in the
> shared index should set the CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag in that entry, and
> unpack_trees() should preserve this flag when copying cache entries.
> This means that the cached data is only ever changed if the
> CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag is set as well. Our test suite seems to
> confirm this: instrumenting the conditions in question and running the
> test suite repeatedly with 'GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=yes' showed that the
> cached data in a copied entry differs from the data in the shared
> entry only if its CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag is indeed set.
Yes I was probably just being paranoid (or sticking to simpler
checks). I was told that split index is computation expensive and not
doing unnecesary/expensive checks may help. But let's leave it for
later.
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * Thoroughly compare the cached data to see
> + * whether it should be marked for inclusion
> + * in the split index.
> + *
> + * This comparison might be unnecessary, as
> + * code paths modifying the cached data do
> + * set CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE as well.
> + */
> + const unsigned int ondisk_flags =
> + CE_STAGEMASK | CE_VALID |
> + CE_EXTENDED_FLAGS;
> + unsigned int ce_flags, base_flags, ret;
> + ce_flags = ce->ce_flags;
> + base_flags = base->ce_flags;
> + /* only on-disk flags matter */
> + ce->ce_flags &= ondisk_flags;
> + base->ce_flags &= ondisk_flags;
> + ret = memcmp(&ce->ce_stat_data, &base->ce_stat_data,
> + offsetof(struct cache_entry, name) -
> + offsetof(struct cache_entry, ce_stat_data));
> + ce->ce_flags = ce_flags;
> + base->ce_flags = base_flags;
Maybe make this block a separate function (compare_ce_content or
something). The amount of indentation is getting too high.
> + if (ret)
> + ce->ce_flags |= CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE;
> + }
> discard_cache_entry(base);
> si->base->cache[ce->index - 1] = ce;
> }
> --
> 2.19.0.361.gafc87ffe72
>
