Hi Johannes,
Thanks for the detailed reply!
My apologies for the subsequent delay - I've been trying to understand
the behavior so that I can describe it in more detail, and that
required me to learn a little C along the way :)
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:49 AM Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
_sometimes_, the mtime of a directory seems not to
be updated immediately after an item in it was modified/added/deleted. And
that mtime is precisely what the untracked cache depends on.
The funny thing is: while the output of `git status` will therefore at
first fail to pick up on, say, a new untracked file, running `git status`
_immediately_ afterwards _will succeed_ to see that untracked file.
(I have nothing to add here - I don't understand what
synchronous-acknowledgement or ordering guarantees we rely on to
determine when we *expect* a change to be available to the fsmonitor,
nor to I have any familiarity with the underlying APIs we use)
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021, Tao Klerks wrote:
- There is also a lingering "problem" with "git status -uall", with
both "core.useBuiltinFSMonitor" and "core.fsmonitor", but that seems
far less trivial to address
Interesting. I guess the untracked cache might become too clunky with many
untracked files? Or is there something else going on?
I think I understand this now, but I don't think I can explain it
particularly well/succinctly.
I've attached a sort of "truth table" of performance data for a
particular repository, running *warm* git status calls (no cold-cache
testing at all) with various config and command-line options, and
reporting the durations of various phases/processes captured using
GIT_TRACE2_PERF=1.
The claimed "problem" with "git status -uall", when both
"core.useBuiltinFSMonitor" and "core.fsmonitor" are enabled, only
exists from the perspective of someone who's got core.fscache enabled
all the time:
* core.fscache works (in the Windows port only) by doing slightly more
expensive work up-front on first directory query within a
request/process lifetime, and then intercepting subsequent filesystem
"queries"/operations
* The context within which most of this more-expensive work typically
occurs, in a "git status" request, is an explicitly and intentionally
multi-threaded filesystem "lstat"-checking process in preload-index.c
(always 20 threads, for a large repo)
* There are two sets of filesystem-iteration in a simple/naive git
status call with core.preloadindex enabled as by default - the
lstat-checking multithreaded loops for files in the index, and the
recursive directory scanning for untracked files that happens later
* That second (not-multithreaded) set of work, with fscache enabled,
gets to reuse a bunch of cached fs data from the first one. A walk
that cost 7s without fscache now costs only 2.5s, for example.
* With fsmonitor enabled (and warm), the first walk simply doesn't
happen, so fscache stops making any difference to that
untracked-file-searching directory walk; it goes back to taking 7s;
every directory is queried once in series, so fscache has no impact at
all.
* Because the preload-index lstat-querying loop is parallelized, with
fscache the initial cache population happens fast-ish - the total time
taken for git status is eg 5s (2.5s of parallelized & accelerated
lstat-querying and 2.5s of
untracked-folder-iterating-and-processing-from-fscache)
* So, with fscache enabled, turning on fsmonitor actually makes "git
status" *slower* - it changes the "lstat + untracked" time from "2.5s
+ 2.5s" to "0s + 7s"
* We can hide/mitigate that by enabling the untracked cache - but that
"fails out" in all sorts of conditions specified in dir.c
validate_untracked_cache(), including specifying "-uall"/"-u" to "git
status
* -> it is only in the context of fscache being enabled, and already
speeding up the filesystem work, that fsmonitor can make things worse
by making the first directory-querying loop happen in a non-parallel
area of code, and thereby cancel fscache's impact.
* -> fsmonitor never makes things worse on linux, since there is no
fscache and so untracked folder iteration never benefits from any
multithreading
* -> when the untracked cache does apply, fsmonitor can *help* it,
avoiding the need for any sort of directory walk at all, on the basis
that "nothing in the filesystem appears to have changed"
Based on this understanding, it looks like there are at least three
possible directions to be explored:
1. Making the untracked cache less sensitive to configuration in
dir.c#validate_untracked_cache(), at the cost of doing more work in
the cold cases & saving more data in the index file (specific
untracked files, and .git folder names or something)
** This would result in peak performance, with no
filesystem-iterating at all in the ideal case
** This would apply / add substantial value in Windows and Linux
** This is probably the most complex change - dir.c is not easy to
understand/navigate
2. Making the untracked directory-search happen in a multithreaded way
** This would raise the performance with "-uall" to approximately the
same as it was before fsmonitor was introduced on windows, and speed
it up slightly on linux
** This change would probably not be worthwhile, - its impact would
not be huge except in very specific cases, and it would still
introduce non-trivial complexity
3. Forcing preload-index to actually "do its multithreaded work", even
when fsmonitor is there, if we know that the untracked cached cannot
be used and fsmonitor is enabled
** This would raise the performance with "-uall" to approximately the
same as it was before fsmonitor was introduced on windows
** This change would probably be pretty easy - the main challenge is
how to get untracked-cache-applicability information at preload-index
time, since these happen in completely different parts of the codebase
I mocked up a local hack for the third option, and confirmed that
forcing preload-index to ignore it does indeed bring "git status
-uall" performance back to the same level as before enabling
fsmonitor.
I just started testing the new "core.useBuiltinFSMonitor" option in
the new installer, and it's amazing, thanks Ben, Alex, Johannes and
Kevin!
Not to forget Jeff Hostetler, who essentially spent the past half year on
it on his own.
Argh, thank you for the correction, and thank you Jeff also for all
your work on this.
For context, this is in a repo with 200,000 or so files, within 40,000
folders (avg path depth 4 I think?), with a reasonably-intricate set
of .gitignore patterns.
My `.gitignore` consists of only ~40 heavily commented lines (containing
five lines with wildcards), but I do have a `.git/info/exclude` that
contains a set of generated file/directory lists, i.e. without any
wildcards. This `exclude` file is ~26k lines long.
My guess is that the amount of work to match the untracked vs ignored
files is dominating the entire operation, by a lot.
In my case, as per the "truth table" referenced above, there are two
kinds of things in play:
1. Filesystem operations are the main thing that matters in Windows
2. Some smaller amount of overhead (0.5-1s in my case) is associated
with other work (pattern-matching etc) during untracked file
detection, even with untracked cache enabled. The only way to avoid
that work altogether is to have fsmonitor *and* untracked cache
working, so that untracked cache can "trust" the fsmonitor results to
avoid having to do any work at all. In this ideal situation fscache
makes no difference, as there is no fs iteration.
I don't know whether this is the right place to report Windows-centric
concerns, if not, my apologies.
I would not necessarily call them "Windows-centric", even if yes, at the
moment the built-in FSMonitor is most easily enabled on Windows (because I
added that experimental option in Git for Windows' installer, after
integrating the experimental feature).
Right - now that I understand the situation better, there are three
specific ways in which I consider these to be windows-centric
concerns:
* In my experience / in my context at least, the "naive" impact of
file operation performance differences results in a more than 10X "git
status" reduction in performance for large repos (over linux); various
optional and/or windows-specific strategies significantly close that
gap
* core.fscache is a windows-specific strategy for dealing with this,
and interacts with other features/strategies in potentially-surprising
ways
* The built-in FSMonitor is still only *easily* available in Windows
But, to your point, most of the *solutions* need not be
windows-centric at all. The "best" one, making untracked cache a
little more forgiving, would definitely have tangible performance
benefits on linux (and presumably OSX).
Thanks,
Tao
