On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 11:04 PM Matheus Tavares Bernardino <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:55 AM Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:51 PM Matheus Tavares Bernardino > > <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, everyone > > > > > > As one of my first tasks in GSoC, I'm looking to protect the global > > > states at sha1-file.c for future parallelizations. Currently, I'm > > > analyzing how to deal with the cached_objects array, which is a small > > > set of in-memory objects that read_object_file() is able to return > > > although they don't really exist on disk. The only current user of > > > this set is git-blame, which adds a fake commit containing > > > non-committed changes. > > > > > > As it is now, if we start parallelizing blame, cached_objects won't be > > > a problem since it is written to only once, at the beginning, and read > > > from a couple times latter, with no possible race conditions. > > > > > > But should we make these operations thread safe for future uses that > > > could involve potential parallel writes and reads too? > > > > > > If so, we have two options: > > > - Make the array thread local, which would oblige us to replicate data, or > > > - Protect it with locks, which could impact the sequential > > > performance. We could have a macro here, to skip looking on > > > single-threaded use cases. But we don't know, a priori, the number of > > > threads that would want to use the pack access code. > > > > > > Any thought on this? > > > > I would go with "that's the problem of the future me". I'll go with a > > simple global (I mean per-object store) mutex. > > Thanks for the help, Duy. What you mean by "per-object store mutex" is > to have a lock for every "struct raw_object_store" in the "struct > repository"? Maybe I didn't quite understand what the "object store" > is, yet. It's struct 'raw_object_store'. I think that struct encapsulates all data structures around $GIT_DIR/objects. > > After we have a > > complete picture how many locks we need, and can run some tests to see > > the amount of lock contention we have (or even cache missess if we > > have so many locks), then we can start thinking of an optimal > > strategy. > > Please correct me if I misunderstand your suggestion. The idea is to > protect the pack access code at a higher level, measure contentions, > and then start refining the locks, if needed? I'm asking because I was > going directly to the lower level protections (or thread-safe > conversions) and planning to build it up. For example, I was working > this week to eliminate static variables inside pack access functions. > Do you think this approach is OK or should I work on a more "broader" > thread-safe conversion first (like a couple wide mutex) and refine it > down? Having one or two big locks might be easy to get thread safe, but that increases lock contention and may take forever to fix (it took a long time to kill Linux's "big kernel lock", and python's equivalent is still here). So having smaller locks around each shared state makes more sense. At least you will have easier time combining them later if you want (breaking down big locks is much harder). What I was getting at was just stick to simple locks like mutex. Once you have identified all shared states to protect, you can profile to have more information and then decide can to choose a different kind of lock, like the read/write one. We might even need to reorganize data structure to be more lock-friendly (or go lockless if you feel brave)... -- Duy
