On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 06:46:59PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> Do we use this partial traversal to impact the write order at all? That
> would be a nice-to-have, but I suspect that just concatenating the packs
> (presumably by descending mtime) ends up with a similar result.
We don't; the objects are written in pack order. In the version of the
patch you reviewed, the order of packs was determined by their hash (due
to the string_list_sort()), but the version I just prepared re-sorts by
mtime.
It's kind of gross, since we need to use QSORT directly on the
string_list internals in order to have access to the ->util field of the
string_list_items (string_list_sort() only lets you compare strings
directly for obvious reasons).
I added a comment describing this hack.
> > +--stdin-packs::
> > + Read the basenames of packfiles from the standard input, instead
> > + of object names or revision arguments. The resulting pack
> > + contains all objects listed in the included packs (those not
> > + beginning with `^`), excluding any objects listed in the
> > + excluded packs (beginning with `^`).
> > ++
> > +Incompatible with `--revs`, or options that imply `--revs` (such as
> > +`--all`), with the exception of `--unpacked`, which is compatible.
>
> I know you say "basename" here, but I wonder if it is worth giving an
> example (`pack-1234abcd.pack`) to make it clear in what form we expect
> it. Or possibly something in the `EXAMPLES` section.
Good idea, thanks.
> > --- a/builtin/pack-objects.c
> > +++ b/builtin/pack-objects.c
> > @@ -2979,6 +2979,164 @@ static int git_pack_config(const char *k, const char *v, void *cb)
> > return git_default_config(k, v, cb);
> > }
> >
> > +static int stdin_packs_found_nr;
> > +static int stdin_packs_hints_nr;
>
> I scratched my head at these until I looked further in the code. They're
> the counters for the trace output. Might be worth a brief comment above
> them. (I do approve of adding this kind of trace debugging info; I'm
> pretty accustomed to using gdb or adding one-off debug statements, but
> we really could do a better job in general of making these kinds of
> internals visible to mere mortal admins).
Good call.
> > +static int add_object_entry_from_pack(const struct object_id *oid,
> > + struct packed_git *p,
> > + uint32_t pos,
> > + void *_data)
> > +{
> > + struct rev_info *revs = _data;
> > + struct object_info oi = OBJECT_INFO_INIT;
> > + off_t ofs;
> > + enum object_type type;
> > +
> > + display_progress(progress_state, ++nr_seen);
> > +
> > + ofs = nth_packed_object_offset(p, pos);
> > +
> > + oi.typep = &type;
> > + if (packed_object_info(the_repository, p, ofs, &oi) < 0)
> > + die(_("could not get type of object %s in pack %s"),
> > + oid_to_hex(oid), p->pack_name);
>
> Calling out for other reviewers: the oi.typep field will be filled in
> the with _real_ type of the object, even if it's a delta. This is as
> opposed to the return value of packed_object_info(), which may be
> OFS_DELTA or REF_DELTA.
>
> And that real type is what we want here:
>
> > + else if (type == OBJ_COMMIT) {
> > + /*
> > + * commits in included packs are used as starting points for the
> > + * subsequent revision walk
> > + */
> > + add_pending_oid(revs, NULL, oid, 0);
> > + }
>
> And later when we call create_object_entry().
:-). Yes indeed. As I'm sure that you will recall, the pack-objects
code _does not_ behave well when you give it the packed type of an
object (which is not entirely unexpected, since the pack-objects code
only operates on the true type, so passing the packed type--as I did
when originally writing this patch--is a bug).
> I wondered whether it would be worth adding other objects we might find,
> like trees, in order to increase our traversal. But that doesn't make
> any sense. The whole point is to find the paths, which come from
> traversing from the root trees. And we can only find the root trees by
> starting at commits. Adding any random tree we found would defeat the
> purpose (most of them are sub-trees and would give us a useless partial
> path).
Right.
> Should we avoid adding the commit as a tip for walking if it won't end
> up in the resulting pack? I.e., should we check these:
>
> > + if (have_duplicate_entry(oid, 0))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (!want_object_in_pack(oid, 0, &p, &ofs))
> > + return 0;
>
> ...first? I guess it probably doesn't matter too much since we'd
> truncate the traversal as soon as we saw it was in a kept pack anyway.
I agree it doesn't make a difference, but I think placing the extra
guards first makes it easier to read (since the reader doesn't have to
consider how the subsequent traversal would treat it).
> > +static void show_commit_pack_hint(struct commit *commit, void *_data)
> > +{
> > +}
>
> Nothing to do here, since commits don't have a name field. Makes sense.
Yeah. I added a comment to say the same thing, just for extra clarity.
>
> > +static void show_object_pack_hint(struct object *object, const char *name,
> > + void *_data)
> > +{
> > + struct object_entry *oe = packlist_find(&to_pack, &object->oid);
> > + if (!oe)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Our 'to_pack' list was constructed by iterating all objects packed in
> > + * included packs, and so doesn't have a non-zero hash field that you
> > + * would typically pick up during a reachability traversal.
> > + *
> > + * Make a best-effort attempt to fill in the ->hash and ->no_try_delta
> > + * here using a now in order to perhaps improve the delta selection
> > + * process.
> > + */
> > + oe->hash = pack_name_hash(name);
> > + oe->no_try_delta = name && no_try_delta(name);
> > +
> > + stdin_packs_hints_nr++;
> > +}
>
> But for actual objects, we do fill in the hash. I wonder if it's
> possible for oe->hash to have been already filled. I don't think it
> really matters, though. Any value we get is equally valid, so
> overwriting is OK in that case.
Right.
> > + trace2_data_intmax("pack-objects", the_repository, "stdin_packs_found",
> > + stdin_packs_found_nr);
>
> I wonder if it makes sense to report the actual set of packs via trace
> (obviously not as an int, but as a list). That's less helpful for
> debugging pack-objects, if you just fed it the input anyway, but if you
> were debugging "git repack --geometric" it might be useful to see which
> packs it thought were which (though arguably that would be a useful
> trace in builtin/repack.c instead).
I could see an argument in both ways. I'd rather pass for now until we
have a clearer need for it.
> [passing --unpacked to the namehash traversal]
>
> I'm OK to consider that an implementation detail for now, though. We can
> change it later without impacting the interface.
Agreed.
> > + if (rev_list_unpacked)
> > + add_unreachable_loose_objects();
>
> Despite the name, that function is adding both reachable and unreachable
> ones. So it is doing what you want. It might be worth renaming, but it's
> not too big a deal since it's local to this file.
Yeah, I tend to err on the side of "it's fine as-is" since this isn't
exposed outside of pack-objects internals. If you feel strongly I'm
happy to change it, but I suspect you don't.
Thanks,
Taylor
