On 9/11/2019 9:11 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:18:46PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
>>> That creates an interesting problem for commits that have _already_ been
>>> parsed using the commit graph. Their commit->object.parsed flag is set,
>>> their commit->graph_pos is set, but their commit->maybe_tree may still
>>> be NULL. When somebody later calls repo_get_commit_tree(), we see that
>>> we haven't loaded the tree oid yet and try to get it from the commit
>>> graph. But since it has been freed, we segfault!
>>
>> I was surprised we ever called repo_get_commit_tree() at all, since
>> we're literally just traversing commits here. It looks like
>> list-objects.c is very happy to queue pending trees for each commit,
>> even if we're just going to throw them away when we get to
>> process_tree()! I wonder if could be checking revs->tree_objects here
>> and saving ourselves some work.
>
> Indeed, this seems to help quite a bit in the commit-graph case. I think
> it's worth doing (and is independent of the other patch).
Good find!
> -- >8 --
> Subject: list-objects: don't queue root trees unless revs->tree_objects is set
>
> When traverse_commit_list() processes each commit, it queues the
> commit's root tree in the pending array. Then, after all commits are
> processed, it calls traverse_trees_and_blobs() to walk over the pending
> list, calling process_tree() on each. But if revs->tree_objects is not
> set, process_tree() just exists immediately!
>
> We can save ourselves some work by not even bothering to queue these
> trees in the first place. There are a few subtle points to make:
>
> - we also detect commits with a NULL tree pointer here. But this isn't
> an interesting check for broken commits, since the lookup_tree()
> we'd have done during commit parsing doesn't actually check that we
> have the tree on disk. So we're not losing any robustness.
>
> - besides queueing, we also set the NOT_USER_GIVEN flag on the tree
> object. This is used by the traverse_commit_list_filtered() variant.
> But if we're not exploring trees, then we won't actually care about
> this flag, which is used only inside process_tree() code-paths.
>
> - queueing trees eventually leads to us queueing blobs, too. But we
> don't need to check revs->blob_objects here. Even in the current
> code, we still wouldn't find those blobs, because we'd never open up
> the tree objects to list their contents.
>
> - the user-visible impact to the caller is minimal. The pending trees
> are all cleared by the time the function returns anyway, by
> traverse_trees_and_blobs(). We do call a show_commit() callback,
> which technically could be looking at revs->pending during the
> callback. But it seems like a rather unlikely thing to do (if you
> want the tree of the current commit, then accessing the tree struct
> member is a lot simpler).
These all look reasonable. We shouldn't need to do any of that any more.
> So this should be safe to do. Let's look at the benefits:
>
> [before]
> Benchmark #1: git -C linux rev-list HEAD >/dev/null
> Time (mean ± σ): 7.651 s ± 0.021 s [User: 7.399 s, System: 0.252 s]
> Range (min … max): 7.607 s … 7.683 s 10 runs
>
> [after]
> Benchmark #1: git -C linux rev-list HEAD >/dev/null
> Time (mean ± σ): 7.593 s ± 0.023 s [User: 7.329 s, System: 0.264 s]
> Range (min … max): 7.565 s … 7.634 s 10 runs
>
> Not too impressive, but then we're really just avoiding sticking a
> pointer into a growable array. But still, I'll take a free 0.75%
> speedup.
>
> Let's try it after running "git commit-graph write":
>
> [before]
> Benchmark #1: git -C linux rev-list HEAD >/dev/null
> Time (mean ± σ): 1.458 s ± 0.011 s [User: 1.199 s, System: 0.259 s]
> Range (min … max): 1.447 s … 1.481 s 10 runs
>
> [after]
> Benchmark #1: git -C linux rev-list HEAD >/dev/null
> Time (mean ± σ): 1.126 s ± 0.023 s [User: 896.5 ms, System: 229.0 ms]
> Range (min … max): 1.106 s … 1.181 s 10 runs
>
> Now that's more like it. We saved over 22% of the total time. Part of
> that is because the runtime is shorter overall, but the absolute
> improvement is also much larger. What's going on?
Very cool.
> When we fill in a commit struct using the commit graph, we don't bother
> to set the tree pointer, and instead lazy-load it when somebody calls
> get_commit_tree(). So we're not only skipping the pointer write to the
> pending queue, but we're skipping the lazy-load of the tree entirely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> list-objects.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/list-objects.c b/list-objects.c
> index b5651ddd5b..c837bcaca8 100644
> --- a/list-objects.c
> +++ b/list-objects.c
> @@ -370,7 +370,9 @@ static void do_traverse(struct traversal_context *ctx)
> * an uninteresting boundary commit may not have its tree
> * parsed yet, but we are not going to show them anyway
> */
> - if (get_commit_tree(commit)) {
> + if (!ctx->revs->tree_objects)
> + ; /* do not bother loading tree */
> + else if (get_commit_tree(commit)) {
> struct tree *tree = get_commit_tree(commit);
> tree->object.flags |= NOT_USER_GIVEN;
> add_pending_tree(ctx->revs, tree);
And a simple code fix. LGTM.
Thanks!
-Stolee
