On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 03:30:27PM +0000, SZEDER Gábor via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: =?UTF-8?q?SZEDER=20G=C3=A1bor?= <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> The current line-level log implementation performs a preprocessing
> step in prepare_revision_walk(), during which the line_log_filter()
> function filters and rewrites history to keep only commits modifying
> the given line range. This preprocessing affects both responsiveness
> and correctness:
>
> - Git doesn't produce any output during this preprocessing step.
> Checking whether a commit modified the given line range is
> somewhat expensive, so depending on the size of the given revision
> range this preprocessing can result in a significant delay before
> the first commit is shown.
>
> - Limiting the number of displayed commits (e.g. 'git log -3 -L...')
> doesn't limit the amount of work during preprocessing, because
> that limit is applied during history traversal. Alas, by that
> point this expensive preprocessing step has already churned
> through the whole revision range to find all commits modifying the
> revision range, even though only a few of them need to be shown.
>
> - It rewrites parents, with no way to turn it off. Without the user
> explicitly requesting parent rewriting any parent object ID shown
> should be that of the immediate parent, just like in case of a
> pathspec-limited history traversal without parent rewriting.
>
> However, after that preprocessing step rewrote history, the
> subsequent "regular" history traversal (i.e. get_revision() in a
> loop) only sees commits modifying the given line range.
> Consequently, it can only show the object ID of the last ancestor
> that modified the given line range (which might happen to be the
> immediate parent, but many-many times it isn't).
Thanks for a very clear and straightforward explanation of the problem
that you are trying to solve, here.
> This patch addresses both the correctness and, at least for the common
> case, the responsiveness issues by integrating line-level log
> filtering into the regular revision walking machinery:
>
> - Make process_ranges_arbitrary_commit(), the static function in
> 'line-log.c' deciding whether a commit modifies the given line
> range, public by removing the static keyword and adding the
> 'line_log_' prefix, so it can be called from other parts of the
> revision walking machinery.
>
> - If the user didn't explicitly ask for parent rewriting (which, I
> believe, is the most common case):
>
> - Call this now-public function during regular history traversal,
> namely from get_commit_action() to ignore any commits not
> modifying the given line range.
>
> Note that while this check is relatively expensive, it must be
> performed before other, much cheaper conditions, because the
> tracked line range must be adjusted even when the commit will
> end up being ignored by other conditions.
>
> - Skip the line_log_filter() call, i.e. the expensive
> preprocessing step, in prepare_revision_walk(), because, thanks
> to the above points, the revision walking machinery is now able
> to filter out commits not modifying the given line range while
> traversing history.
>
> This way the regular history traversal sees the unmodified
> history, and is therefore able to print the object ids of the
> immediate parents of the listed commits. The eliminated
> preprocessing step can greatly reduce the delay before the first
> commit is shown, see the numbers below.
Nicely done.
> - However, if the user did explicitly ask for parent rewriting via
> '--parents' or a similar option, then stick with the current
> implementation for now, i.e. perform that expensive filtering and
> history rewriting in the preprocessing step just like we did
> before, leaving the initial delay as long as it was.
Right; here we're stuck taking the slow path. Maybe in the future that
could become faster, too, if the revision walking machinery knew how to
perform this filtering, but not today. Makes sense.
> I tried to integrate line-level log filtering with parent rewriting
> into the regular history traversal, but, unfortunately, several
> subtleties resisted... :) Maybe someday we'll figure out how to do
> that, but until then at least the simple and common (i.e. without
> parent rewriting) 'git log -L:func:file' commands can benefit from the
> reduced delay.
:)
> This change makes the failing 'parent oids without parent rewriting'
> test in 't4211-line-log.sh' succeed.
>
> The reduced delay is most noticable when there's a commit modifying
> the line range near the tip of a large-ish revision range:
>
> # no parent rewriting requested, no commit-graph present
> $ time git --no-pager log -L:read_alternate_refs:sha1-file.c -1 v2.23.0
>
> Before:
>
> real 0m9.570s
> user 0m9.494s
> sys 0m0.076s
>
> After:
>
> real 0m0.718s
> user 0m0.674s
> sys 0m0.044s
>
> A significant part of the remaining delay is spent reading and parsing
> commit objects in limit_list(). With the help of the commit-graph we
> can eliminate most of that reading and parsing overhead, so here are
> the timing results of the same command as above, but this time using
> the commit-graph:
>
> Before:
>
> real 0m8.874s
> user 0m8.816s
> sys 0m0.057s
>
> After:
>
> real 0m0.107s
> user 0m0.091s
> sys 0m0.013s
>
> The next patch will further reduce the remaining delay.
>
> To be clear: this patch doesn't actually optimize the line-level log,
> but merely moves most of the work from the preprocessing step to the
> history travelsal, so the commits modifying the line range can be
s/travelsal/traversal
> shown as soon as they are processed, and the traversal can be
> terminated as soon as the given number of commits are shown.
> Consequently, listing the full history of a line range, potentially
> all the way to the root commit, will take the same time as before (but
> at least the user might start reading the output earlier).
> Furthermore, if the most recent commit modifying the line range is far
> away from the starting revision, then that initial delay will still be
> significant.
>
> Additional testing by Derrick Stolee: In the Linux kernel repository,
> the MAINTAINERS file was changed ~3,500 times across the ~915,000
> commits. In addition to that edit frequency, the file itself is quite
> large (~18,700 lines). This means that a significant portion of the
> computation is taken up by computing the patch-diff of the file. This
> patch improves the time it takes to output the first result quite a
> bit:
>
> Command: git log -L 100,200:MAINTAINERS -n 1 >/dev/null
> Before: 3.88 s
> After: 0.71 s
Are these 'real' times, or user/sys times?
> If we drop the "-n 1" in the command, then there is no change in
> end-to-end process time. This is because the command still needs to
> walk the entire commit history, which negates the point of this
> patch. This is expected.
>
> As a note for future reference, the ~4.3 seconds in the old code
> spends ~2.6 seconds computing the patch-diffs, and the rest of the
> time is spent walking commits and computing diffs for which paths
> changed at each commit. The changed-path Bloom filters could improve
> the end-to-end computation time (i.e. no "-n 1" in the command).
>
> Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> line-log.c | 4 ++--
> line-log.h | 2 ++
> revision.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> t/t4211-line-log.sh | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/line-log.c b/line-log.c
> index 9010e00950b..520ee715bcd 100644
> --- a/line-log.c
> +++ b/line-log.c
> @@ -1227,7 +1227,7 @@ static int process_ranges_merge_commit(struct rev_info *rev, struct commit *comm
> /* NEEDSWORK leaking like a sieve */
> }
>
> -static int process_ranges_arbitrary_commit(struct rev_info *rev, struct commit *commit)
> +int line_log_process_ranges_arbitrary_commit(struct rev_info *rev, struct commit *commit)
> {
> struct line_log_data *range = lookup_line_range(rev, commit);
> int changed = 0;
> @@ -1270,7 +1270,7 @@ int line_log_filter(struct rev_info *rev)
> while (list) {
> struct commit_list *to_free = NULL;
> commit = list->item;
> - if (process_ranges_arbitrary_commit(rev, commit)) {
> + if (line_log_process_ranges_arbitrary_commit(rev, commit)) {
> *pp = list;
> pp = &list->next;
> } else
> diff --git a/line-log.h b/line-log.h
> index 882c5055bb8..82ae8d98a40 100644
> --- a/line-log.h
> +++ b/line-log.h
> @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ struct line_log_data {
> void line_log_init(struct rev_info *rev, const char *prefix, struct string_list *args);
>
> int line_log_filter(struct rev_info *rev);
> +int line_log_process_ranges_arbitrary_commit(struct rev_info *rev,
> + struct commit *commit);
>
> int line_log_print(struct rev_info *rev, struct commit *commit);
>
> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
> index f78c636e4d0..3228db9af6d 100644
> --- a/revision.c
> +++ b/revision.c
> @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ static const char *term_good;
>
> implement_shared_commit_slab(revision_sources, char *);
>
> +static inline int want_ancestry(const struct rev_info *revs);
> +
I wouldn't be opposed to simply moving the definition of 'want_ancestry'
up here, since it is self-contained and doesn't depend on any other
definitions, except 'struct rev_info' itself, which comes from
'revision.h'.
> void show_object_with_name(FILE *out, struct object *obj, const char *name)
> {
> const char *p;
> @@ -3511,7 +3513,14 @@ int prepare_revision_walk(struct rev_info *revs)
> sort_in_topological_order(&revs->commits, revs->sort_order);
> } else if (revs->topo_order)
> init_topo_walk(revs);
> - if (revs->line_level_traverse)
> + if (revs->line_level_traverse && want_ancestry(revs))
> + /*
> + * At the moment we can only do line-level log with parent
> + * rewriting by performing this expensive pre-filtering step.
> + * If parent rewriting is not requested, then we rather
> + * perform the line-level log filtering during the regular
> + * history traversal.
I think that this is just a style comment at this point, but I'm not
overly attached to the last three lines of this comment. I think that
the commit message that these lines would blame down to explains the
situation quite clearly, and the reader can search for the
'!want_ancestry' call a couple hundred lines later.
That said, I certainly won't be offended if you want to keep this
comment around; I just don't think that it's strictly necessary.
> + */
> line_log_filter(revs);
> if (revs->simplify_merges)
> simplify_merges(revs);
> @@ -3722,6 +3731,22 @@ enum commit_action get_commit_action(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commi
> return commit_ignore;
> if (commit->object.flags & UNINTERESTING)
> return commit_ignore;
> + if (revs->line_level_traverse && !want_ancestry(revs)) {
> + /*
> + * In case of line-level log with parent rewriting
> + * prepare_revision_walk() already took care of all line-level
> + * log filtering, and there is nothing left to do here.
> + *
> + * If parent rewriting was not requested, then this is the
> + * place to perform the line-level log filtering. Notably,
> + * this check, though expensive, must come before the other,
> + * cheaper filtering conditions, because the tracked line
> + * ranges must be adjusted even when the commit will end up
> + * being ignored based on other conditions.
> + */
> + if (!line_log_process_ranges_arbitrary_commit(revs, commit))
> + return commit_ignore;
> + }
> if (revs->min_age != -1 &&
> comparison_date(revs, commit) > revs->min_age)
> return commit_ignore;
> diff --git a/t/t4211-line-log.sh b/t/t4211-line-log.sh
> index ea4a9398365..1428eae2629 100755
> --- a/t/t4211-line-log.sh
> +++ b/t/t4211-line-log.sh
> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ test_expect_success 'setup for checking line-log and parent oids' '
> '
>
> # Parent oid should be from immediate parent.
> -test_expect_failure 'parent oids without parent rewriting' '
> +test_expect_success 'parent oids without parent rewriting' '
> cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> $head_oid $prev_oid Modify func2() in file.c
> $root_oid Add func1() and func2() in file.c
> --
> gitgitgadget
All makes sense, and the ending is very satisfying. Someone with a
little more familiarity with line-log should review this also. But, for
my part this has been:
Reviewed-by: Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Taylor
