On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 04:11:24PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 03:28:34PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 22 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:11:26PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Commit 49bbc57a57 (commit-graph write: emit a percentage for all
> >> >> > progress, 2019-01-19) was a bit overeager when it added progress
> >> >> > percentages to the "Expanding reachable commits in commit graph" phase
> >> >> > as well, because most of the time the number of commits that phase has
> >> >> > to iterate over is not known in advance and grows significantly, and,
> >> >> > consequently, we end up with nonsensical numbers:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > $ git commit-graph write --reachable
> >> >> > Expanding reachable commits in commit graph: 138606% (824706/595), done.
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > $ git rev-parse v5.0 | git commit-graph write --stdin-commits
> >> >> > Expanding reachable commits in commit graph: 81264400% (812644/1), done.
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Therefore, don't show progress percentages in the "Expanding reachable
> >> >> > commits in commit graph" phase.
> >> >>
> >> >> There's indeed a bug here as your examples show, but there *are* cases
> >> >> where it's correct, as the commit message for my patch on "master" shows
> >> >> there's cases where we correctly.
> >> >>
> >> >> So this "fixes" things by always removing the progress, why not instead
> >> >> pass down the state to close_reachable() about what we're walking over,
> >> >> so we can always show progress, or at least in some cases?
> >> >
> >> > The cases where it does display correct percentages are exceptional,
> >> > and doesn't worth the effort to try to find out whether ther current
> >> > operation happens to be such a case.
> >>
> >> It's the "write" entry point without arguments that displays the correct
> >> progress. So not exceptional, but yeah, it's not what we use on "gc".
> >
> > Bit it displays the correct number only if all the reachable commits
> > are in packfiles, which is not necessarily the case (e.g. unpacked
> > small packs during 'git fetch').
>
> No, argument-less "write" only considers packed commits.
No, it considers packed commits as starting points, and then expands
to all reachable commits, that's what that loop in question is about.
$ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /tmp/test/.git/
$ echo >file
$ git add file
$ git commit -q -m initial
$ echo 1 >file
$ git commit -q -m 1 file
$ git rev-parse HEAD | git pack-objects
.git/objects/pack/pack
Enumerating objects: 1, done.
Counting objects: 100% (1/1), done.
ece3ff72952af2b28e048fa5c58db88c44312876
Writing objects: 100% (1/1), done.
Total 1 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
$ git commit-graph write
Computing commit graph generation numbers: 100% (2/2), done.
> >> In any case, the problem is that sometimes we've walked the full set of
> >> commits already, and some other times we haven't.
> >
> > ... and that we can't really be sure whether we've walked the full set
> > of commits until after this loop.
>
> I'm fairly sure we can when we start with a full walk. See my
> explanation in <87imwbc6x8.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, but I may have
> missed something.
>
> >> So in cases where we have we can show progress, and as a TODO (I think
> >> this came up in previous discussions), we could do better if we had a
> >> approximate_commit_count().
> >>
> >> In any case, the below fix seems correct to me, but I haven't poked it
> >> much. It *does* suffer from a theoretical race with the progress bar
> >> similar to d9b1b309cf ("commit-graph write: show progress for object
> >> search", 2019-01-19), but I work around it in the same way:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
> >> index 47e9be0a3a..0fab3d8b2b 100644
> >> --- a/commit-graph.c
> >> +++ b/commit-graph.c
> >> @@ -693,7 +693,8 @@ static void add_missing_parents(struct packed_oid_list *oids, struct commit *com
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static void close_reachable(struct packed_oid_list *oids, int report_progress)
> >> +static void close_reachable(struct packed_oid_list *oids, int report_progress,
> >> + uint64_t oids_count_for_progress)
> >> {
> >> int i;
> >> struct commit *commit;
> >> @@ -717,7 +718,8 @@ static void close_reachable(struct packed_oid_list *oids, int report_progress)
> >> */
> >> if (report_progress)
> >> progress = start_delayed_progress(
> >> - _("Expanding reachable commits in commit graph"), oids->nr);
> >> + _("Expanding reachable commits in commit graph"),
> >> + oids_count_for_progress);
> >> for (i = 0; i < oids->nr; i++) {
> >> display_progress(progress, i + 1);
> >> commit = lookup_commit(the_repository, &oids->list[i]);
> >> @@ -725,6 +727,8 @@ static void close_reachable(struct packed_oid_list *oids, int report_progress)
> >> if (commit && !parse_commit(commit))
> >> add_missing_parents(oids, commit);
> >> }
> >> + if (oids->nr < oids_count_for_progress)
> >> + display_progress(progress, oids_count_for_progress);
> >> stop_progress(&progress);
> >>
> >> if (report_progress)
> >> @@ -829,6 +833,7 @@ void write_commit_graph(const char *obj_dir,
> >> uint64_t progress_cnt = 0;
> >> struct strbuf progress_title = STRBUF_INIT;
> >> unsigned long approx_nr_objects;
> >> + uint64_t oids_count_for_progress = 0;
> >>
> >> if (!commit_graph_compatible(the_repository))
> >> return;
> >> @@ -934,9 +939,10 @@ void write_commit_graph(const char *obj_dir,
> >> if (oids.progress_done < approx_nr_objects)
> >> display_progress(oids.progress, approx_nr_objects);
> >> stop_progress(&oids.progress);
> >> + oids_count_for_progress = oids.nr;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - close_reachable(&oids, report_progress);
> >> + close_reachable(&oids, report_progress, oids_count_for_progress);
> >>
> >> if (report_progress)
> >> progress = start_delayed_progress(
> >>
