On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 5:30 PM Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, 9 Jun 2022, Han Xin wrote: > > > Neeraj Singh[1] pointed out that if batch fsync is enabled, we should still > > call prepare_loose_object_bulk_checkin() to potentially create the bulk checkin > > objdir. > > > > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/7ba4858a-d1cc-a4eb-b6d6-4c04a5dd6ce7@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Han Xin <chiyutianyi@xxxxxxxxx> > > I like a good commit message that is concise and yet has all the necessary > information. Well done! > > > --- > > object-file.c | 3 +++ > > t/t5351-unpack-large-objects.sh | 15 ++++++++++++++- > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/object-file.c b/object-file.c > > index 2dd828b45b..3a1be74775 100644 > > --- a/object-file.c > > +++ b/object-file.c > > @@ -2131,6 +2131,9 @@ int stream_loose_object(struct input_stream *in_stream, size_t len, > > char hdr[MAX_HEADER_LEN]; > > int hdrlen; > > > > + if (batch_fsync_enabled(FSYNC_COMPONENT_LOOSE_OBJECT)) > > + prepare_loose_object_bulk_checkin(); > > + > > Makes sense. > > > /* Since oid is not determined, save tmp file to odb path. */ > > strbuf_addf(&filename, "%s/", get_object_directory()); > > hdrlen = format_object_header(hdr, sizeof(hdr), OBJ_BLOB, len); > > diff --git a/t/t5351-unpack-large-objects.sh b/t/t5351-unpack-large-objects.sh > > index 461ca060b2..a66a51f7df 100755 > > --- a/t/t5351-unpack-large-objects.sh > > +++ b/t/t5351-unpack-large-objects.sh > > @@ -18,7 +18,10 @@ test_expect_success "create large objects (1.5 MB) and PACK" ' > > test_commit --append foo big-blob && > > test-tool genrandom bar 1500000 >big-blob && > > test_commit --append bar big-blob && > > - PACK=$(echo HEAD | git pack-objects --revs pack) > > + PACK=$(echo HEAD | git pack-objects --revs pack) && > > + git verify-pack -v pack-$PACK.pack | > > + grep -E "commit|tree|blob" | > > + sed -n -e "s/^\([0-9a-f]*\).*/\1/p" >obj-list > > Here, I would recommend avoiding the pipe, to ensure that we would catch > problems in the `verify-pack` invocation, and I think we can avoid the > `grep` altogether: > > git verify-pack -v pack-$PACK.pack >out && > sed -n 's/^\([0-9a-f][0-9a-f]*\).*\(commit\|tree\|blob\)/\1/p' \ > <out >obj-list > Good suggestion. I will take it. Thanks. -Han Xin > > ' > > > > test_expect_success 'set memory limitation to 1MB' ' > > @@ -45,6 +48,16 @@ test_expect_success 'unpack big object in stream' ' > > test_dir_is_empty dest.git/objects/pack > > ' > > > > +BATCH_CONFIGURATION='-c core.fsync=loose-object -c core.fsyncmethod=batch' > > + > > +test_expect_success 'unpack big object in stream (core.fsyncmethod=batch)' ' > > + prepare_dest 1m && > > + git $BATCH_CONFIGURATION -C dest.git unpack-objects <pack-$PACK.pack && > > I think the canonical way would be to use `test_config core.fsync ...`, > but the presented way works, too. > > > + test_dir_is_empty dest.git/objects/pack && > > + git -C dest.git cat-file --batch-check="%(objectname)" <obj-list >current && > > Good. The `--batch-check="%(objectname)"` part forces `cat-file` to read > the actual object. > > > + cmp obj-list current > > +' > > My main question about this test case is whether it _actually_ verifies > that the batch-mode `fsync()`ing took place. > > I kind of had expected to see Trace2 enabled and a `grep` for > `fsync/hardware-flush`. Do you think that would still make sense to add? > > Thank you for working on the `fsync()` aspects of Git! > Dscho > More rigorous inspection should be adopted. Thanks. -Han Xin > > + > > test_expect_success 'do not unpack existing large objects' ' > > prepare_dest 1m && > > git -C dest.git index-pack --stdin <pack-$PACK.pack && > > -- > > 2.36.1 > > > >
