On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:12:06AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > I think we'd want a way to tell the bitmap code to update our progress > > meter as it traverses (both single objects, but also taking into account > > when it finds a bitmap and then suddenly bumps the value by a large > > amount). > > Not splitting it will fix the progress bar stalling, so it fixes the > problem that the user is wondering if the command is entirely hanging. > > But I was hoping to give the user an idea of roughly where we're > spending our time, e.g. so you can see how much the pack.useSparse > setting is helping (or not). Yeah, I think that's a bigger and more complicated problem. I admit that my main annoyance is just the stall while we fill in the bitmaps (and it's easy because the bitmap traversal is the same unit of work as a regular traversal). > So something where we report sub-progress as we go along, and perhaps > print some brief summary at the end if it took long enough, e.g.: > > Enumerating Objects (X^1%) => Marking trees (Y^1%) > Enumerating Objects (X^2%) => Calculating bitmaps (Y^2%) > > And at the end: > > Enumerating Objects (100%) in ~2m30s -- (~10s marking trees, ~2m10s bitmaps, ~10s other) > > I.e. bringing the whole "nested" trace2 regions full circle with the > progress bar where we could elect to trace/show some of that info, and > then you could turn on some trace2 mode/verbose progress to see more. I do wonder if this really needs to be part of the progress bar. The goal of the progress bar is to give the user a sense that work is happening, and (if possible, but not for "enumerating") an idea of when it might finish. If the trace code can already do detailed timings, then shouldn't we just be encouraging people to use that? -Peff
