On Wed, Nov 17 2021, Neeraj Singh wrote: [Very late reply, sorry] > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:28 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 16 2021, Neeraj Singh wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:10 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason >> > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 15 2021, Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget wrote: >> >> >> >> > * Per [2], I'm leaving the fsyncObjectFiles configuration as is with >> >> > 'true', 'false', and 'batch'. This makes using old and new versions of >> >> > git with 'batch' mode a little trickier, but hopefully people will >> >> > generally be moving forward in versions. >> >> > >> >> > [1] See >> >> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1067.git.1635287730.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ >> >> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqh7cimuxt.fsf@gitster.g/ >> >> >> >> I really think leaving that in-place is just being unnecessarily >> >> cavalier. There's a lot of mixed-version environments where git is >> >> deployed in, and we almost never break the configuration in this way (I >> >> think in the past always by mistake). >> > >> >> In this case it's easy to avoid it, and coming up with a less narrow >> >> config model[1] seems like a good idea in any case to unify the various >> >> outstanding work in this area. >> >> >> >> More generally on this series, per the thread ending in [2] I really >> > >> > My primary goal in all of these changes is to move git-for-windows over to >> > a default of batch fsync so that it can get closer to other platforms >> > in performance >> > of 'git add' while still retaining the same level of data integrity. >> > I'm hoping that >> > most end-users are just sticking to defaults here. >> > >> > I'm happy to change the configuration schema again if there's a >> > consensus from the Git >> > community that backwards-compatibility of the configuration is >> > actually important to someone. >> > >> > Also, if we're doing a deeper rethink of the fsync configuration (as >> > prompted by this work and >> > Eric Wong's and Patrick Steinhardts work), do we want to retain a mode >> > where we fsync some >> > parts of the persistent repo data but not others? If we add fsyncing >> > of the index in addition to the refs, >> > I believe we would have covered all of the critical data structures >> > that would be needed to find the >> > data that a user has added to the repo if they complete a series of >> > git commands and then experience >> > a system crash. >> >> Just talking about it is how we'll find consensus, maybe you & Junio >> would like to keep it as-is. I don't see why we'd expose this bad edge >> case in configuration handling to users when it's entirely avoidable, >> and we're still in the design phase. > > After trying to figure out an implementation, I have a new proposal, > which I've shared on the other thread [1]. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CANQDOdcdhfGtPg0PxpXQA5gQ4x9VknKDKCCi4HEB0Z1xgnjKzg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ This LGTM, or something simpler as Junio points out with his "too fine-grained?" comment as a follow-up. I'm honestly quite apathetic about what we end up with exactly as long as: 1. We get the people who are adding these config settings to talk & see if they make sense in combination. 2. We avoid the trap of hard dying on older versions. >> >> >> don't get why we have code like this: >> >> >> >> @@ -503,10 +504,12 @@ static void unpack_all(void) >> >> if (!quiet) >> >> progress = start_progress(_("Unpacking objects"), nr_objects); >> >> CALLOC_ARRAY(obj_list, nr_objects); >> >> + plug_bulk_checkin(); >> >> for (i = 0; i < nr_objects; i++) { >> >> unpack_one(i); >> >> display_progress(progress, i + 1); >> >> } >> >> + unplug_bulk_checkin(); >> >> stop_progress(&progress); >> >> >> >> if (delta_list) >> >> >> >> As opposed to doing an fsync on the last object we're >> >> processing. I.e. why do we need the step of intentionally making the >> >> objects unavailable in the tmp-objdir, and creating a "cookie" file to >> >> sync at the start/end, as opposed to fsyncing on the last file (which >> >> we're writing out anyway). >> >> >> >> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/211110.86r1bogg27.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20211111000349.GA703@neerajsi-x1.localdomain/ >> > >> > It's important to not expose an object's final name until its contents >> > have been fsynced >> > to disk. We want to ensure that wherever we crash, we won't have a >> > loose object that >> > Git may later try to open where the filename doesn't match the content >> > hash. I believe it's >> > okay for a given OID to be missing, since a later command could >> > recreate it, but an object >> > with a wrong hash looks like it would persist until we do a git-fsck. >> >> Yes, we handle that rather badly, as I mentioned in some other threads, >> but not doing the fsync on the last object v.s. a "cookie" file right >> afterwards seems like a hail-mary at best, no? >> > > I'm not quite grasping what you're saying here. Are you saying that > using a dummy > file instead of one of the actual objects is less likely to produce > the desired outcome > on actual filesystem implementations? [...covered below...] >> > I thought about figuring out how to sync the last object rather than some random >> > "cookie" file, but it wasn't clear to me how I'd figure out which >> > object is actually last >> > from library code in a way that doesn't burden each command with >> > somehow figuring >> > out its last object and communicating that. The 'cookie' approach >> > seems to lead to a cleaner >> > interface for callers. >> >> The above quoted code is looping through nr_objects isn't it? Can't a >> "do fsync" be passed down to unpack_one() when we process the last loose >> object? > > Are you proposing that we do something different for unpack_objects > versus update_index > and git-add? I was hoping to keep all of the users of the batch fsync > functionality equivalent. > For the git-add workflow and update-index, we'd need to track the most > recent file so that we > can go back and fsync it. I don't believe that syncing the last > object composes well with the existing > implementation of those commands. There's probably cases where we need the cookie. I just mean instead of the API being (as seen above in the quoted part), pseudocode: # A bulk_checkin_start_make_cookie(): n = 10 for i in 1..n: write_nth(i, fsync: 0); bulk_checkin_end_commit_cookie(); To have it be: # B bulk_checkin_start(do_cookie: 0); n = 10 for i in 1..n: write_nth(i, fsync: (i == n)); bulk_checkin_end(); Or actually, presumably simpler as: # C all_fsync = bulk_checkin_mode() ? 0 : fsync_turned_on_in_general(); end_fsync = bulk_checkin_mode() ? 1 : all_fsync; n = 10; for i in 1..n: write_nth(i, fsync: (i == n) ? end_fsync : all_fsync); I.e. maybe there are cases where you really do need "A", but we're usually (always?) writing out N objects, and we usually know it at the same point where you'd want the plug_bulk_checkin/unplug_bulk_checkin, so just fsyncing the last object/file/ref/whatever means we don't need the whole ceremony of the cookie file. I don't mind it per-se, but "B" and "C" just seem a lot simpler, particulary since as those examples show we'll presumably want to pass down a "do fsync?" to these in general, and we even usually have a display_progress() in there. So doesn't just doing "B" or "C" eliminate the need for a cookie entirely? Another advantage of that is that you'll presumably want such tracking anyway even for the case of "A". Because as soon as you have say a batch operation of writing X objects and Y refs you'd want to track this anyway. I.e. either only fsync() on the ref write (particularly if there's just the one ref), or on the last ref, or for each ref and no object syncs. So this (like "C", except for the "do_batch" in the "end_fsync" case): # D do_batch = in_existing_bulk_checkin() ? 1 : 0; all_fsync = bulk_checkin_mode() ? 0 : fsync_turned_on_in_general(); end_fsync = bulk_checkin_mode() ? do_batch : all_fsync; n = 10; for i in 1..n: write_nth(i, fsync: (i == n) ? end_fsync : all_fsync); I mean, usually we'd want the "all refs", I'm just thinking of a case like "git fast-import" or other known-to-the-user batch operation. Or, as in the case of my 4bc1fd6e394 (pack-objects: rename .idx files into place after .bitmap files, 2021-09-09) we'd want to know that we're writing all of say *.bitmap, *.rev where we currently fsync() all of them, write *.bitmap, *.rev and *.pack (not sure that one is safe) without fsync(), and then only fsync (or that and in-place move) the *.idx.
