On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 8:10 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 7/13/2021 3:33 PM, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > From: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>
> ...
> > Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is
> > because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one.
> > It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even
> > thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for
> > correctness.
> >
> > However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that
> > process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if
> > I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change
> > collect_merge_info()
> > detect_and_process_renames()
> > process_entries()
> > into
> > collect_merge_info()
> > detect_and_process_renames()
> > <cache all the renames, and restart>
> > collect_merge_info()
> > detect_and_process_renames()
> > process_entries()
> >
> > This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although
> > we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ
> > trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased
> > time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run
> > detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's
> > nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do
> > have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the
> > big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much
> > faster due to having far fewer entries to process.
>
> I enjoyed the story you tell here.
:-)
> > + if (path_count_after) {
> > + /*
> > + * Not sure were the right cut-off is for the optimization
> > + * to redo collect_merge_info after we've cached the
> > + * regular renames is. Basically, collect_merge_info(),
> > + * detect_regular_renames(), and process_entries() are
> > + * similar costs and all big tent poles. Caching the
> > + * result of detect_regular_renames() means that redoing
> > + * that one function will cost us virtually 0 extra, so it
> > + * depends on the other two functions, which are both O(N)
> > + * cost in the number of paths. Thus, it makes sense that
> > + * if we can cut the number of paths in half, then redoing
> > + * collect_merge_info() at half cost in order to get
> > + * process_entries() at half cost should be about equal
> > + * cost. If we can cut by more than half, then we would
> > + * win. The fact that process_entries() is about 10%-20%
> > + * more expensive than collect_merge_info() suggests we
> > + * could make the factor be less than two. The fact that
> > + * even when we have renames cached, we still have to
> > + * traverse down to the individual (relevant) renames,
> > + * which suggests we should perhaps use a bigger factor.
> > + *
> > + * The exact number isn't critical, since the code will
> > + * work even if we get the factor wrong -- it just might be
> > + * slightly slower if we're a bit off. For now, just error
> > + * on the side of a bigger fudge. For the linux kernel
>
> super-nit: s/linux/Linux/
Yeah, I tend to refer to projects by the name of their repository
instead of their proper name. (I do it with git too.) Bad habit.
Will fix. That is, I will fix this instance. Not sure I can fix the
habit.
> > + * testcases I was looking at with massive renames, the
> > + * ratio came in around 50 to 250, which clearly would
> > + * trigger this optimization and provided some *very* nice
> > + * speedups.
>
> This bit of your testing might be more appropriate for your commit
> message. This discussion of a test made at a certain point in time
> is more likely to go stale than the description of how this factor
> does not change correctness, only performance.
The commit message does include discussion on how this factor only
changes performance, not correctness. I left this comment in the code
because I figured it looked weird and magic and deserved an
explanation without resorting to git-log or git-blame. Granted, I
wrote this comment and the commit message at much different times (I
wrote the comment first, then the commit message many months later)
and thus summarized a bit differently. But I thought I had the same
relevant content in both places.
Are there pieces you feel are missing from the commit message? Should
I trim this comment down in the code and just let people look for the
commit message for more details?
> > + */
> > + int wanted_factor = 3;
>
> and perhaps make it 'const'?
Sure, will do.
> > +
> > + /* We should only redo collect_merge_info one time */
> > + assert(renames->redo_after_renames == 0);
> > +
> > + if (path_count_after / path_count_before > wanted_factor) {
>
> With truncation from integer division, this condition is equivalent* to
>
> path_count_after >= 4 * path_count_before
>
> Or, do you want to change this to a ">=" so that the factor of 3 seems
> more accurate?
>
> *I understand the intention of using division to avoid (unlikely)
> overflow via multiplication. The truncation is causing some confusion.
Good catch; I'll fix it up to use ">=".
> > -test_expect_merge_algorithm failure failure '12f: Trivial directory resolve, caching, all kinds of fun' '
> > +test_expect_merge_algorithm failure success '12f: Trivial directory resolve, caching, all kinds of fun' '
> > test_setup_12f &&
> > (
> > cd 12f &&
> >
>
> Oh, and a bonus test success! Excellent.
Yeah, this testcase was slightly weird in the order I sent it
upstream. 12f was written specifically with this optimization in mind
as a way of ensuring code coverage of the restart logic. I would have
waited to submit the 12f testcase with this series, but the testcase
also demonstrated an important directory rename detection bug that I
found existed in both merge-recursive and merge-ort at the time. See
commit 902c521a35 ("t6423: more involved directory rename test",
2020-10-15)
The merge-ort bug was fixed with commit 203c872c4f ("merge-ort: fix a
directory rename detection bug", 2021-01-19). The merge-recursive bug
still exists.
So, this series just fixed up the final thing that 12f was testing for
-- namely that it included two collect_merge_info() region_enter
trace2 calls per commit instead of just one.
Perhaps I could have split the test, but both things require a
relatively big set of files which makes the test a bit more expensive
so I didn't want to duplicate it. Besides, having both factors
involved makes it a better stress test of the restart logic.
