On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 02:08:11PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 08:44:32PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> [snip]
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-gc.txt b/Documentation/git-gc.txt
> > index 90806fd26a..fa0541b416 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/git-gc.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/git-gc.txt
> > @@ -59,6 +59,13 @@ be performed as well.
> > cruft pack instead of storing them as loose objects. `--cruft`
> > is on by default.
> >
> > +--max-cruft-size=<n>::
> > + When packing unreachable objects into a cruft pack, limit the
> > + size of new cruft packs to be at most `<n>`. Overrides any
>
> We should probably mention the unit here, which is bytes.
Perhaps, though I'm OK with omitting it in the name of brevity, but only
since we link off to the relevant section in the git-repack(1)
documentation (which does include the units there).
> > +static void collapse_small_cruft_packs(FILE *in, size_t max_size,
> > + struct existing_packs *existing)
> > +{
> > + struct packed_git **existing_cruft, *p;
> > + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> > + size_t total_size = 0;
> > + size_t existing_cruft_nr = 0;
> > + size_t i;
> > +
> > + ALLOC_ARRAY(existing_cruft, existing->cruft_packs.nr);
> > +
> > + for (p = get_all_packs(the_repository); p; p = p->next) {
> > + if (!(p->is_cruft && p->pack_local))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + strbuf_reset(&buf);
> > + strbuf_addstr(&buf, pack_basename(p));
> > + strbuf_strip_suffix(&buf, ".pack");
> > +
> > + if (!string_list_has_string(&existing->cruft_packs, buf.buf))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (existing_cruft_nr >= existing->cruft_packs.nr)
> > + BUG("too many cruft packs (found %"PRIuMAX", but knew "
> > + "of %"PRIuMAX")",
> > + (uintmax_t)existing_cruft_nr + 1,
> > + (uintmax_t)existing->cruft_packs.nr);
> > + existing_cruft[existing_cruft_nr++] = p;
> > + }
> > +
> > + QSORT(existing_cruft, existing_cruft_nr, existing_cruft_pack_cmp);
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < existing_cruft_nr; i++) {
> > + size_t proposed;
> > +
> > + p = existing_cruft[i];
> > + proposed = st_add(total_size, p->pack_size);
> > +
> > + if (proposed <= max_size) {
> > + total_size = proposed;
> > + fprintf(in, "-%s\n", pack_basename(p));
> > + } else {
> > + retain_cruft_pack(existing, p);
> > + fprintf(in, "%s\n", pack_basename(p));
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < existing->non_kept_packs.nr; i++)
> > + fprintf(in, "-%s.pack\n",
> > + existing->non_kept_packs.items[i].string);
>
> As far as I can see, the non-kept packs are passed to
> git-pack-objects(1) both in the cases where we do collapse small cruft
> packs and where we don't. Is there any particular reason why we handle
> those in both code paths separately instead of merging that logic? Is
> the ordering of packfiles important here?
No particularly good reason. The ordering isn't important, and you could do something like this:
--- 8< ---
diff --git a/builtin/repack.c b/builtin/repack.c
index 04770b15fe..6e17fc3f51 100644
--- a/builtin/repack.c
+++ b/builtin/repack.c
@@ -905,10 +905,6 @@ static void collapse_small_cruft_packs(FILE *in, size_t max_size,
}
}
- for (i = 0; i < existing->non_kept_packs.nr; i++)
- fprintf(in, "-%s.pack\n",
- existing->non_kept_packs.items[i].string);
-
strbuf_release(&buf);
}
@@ -959,14 +955,13 @@ static int write_cruft_pack(const struct pack_objects_args *args,
in = xfdopen(cmd.in, "w");
for_each_string_list_item(item, names)
fprintf(in, "%s-%s.pack\n", pack_prefix, item->string);
- if (args->max_pack_size && !cruft_expiration) {
+ if (args->max_pack_size && !cruft_expiration)
collapse_small_cruft_packs(in, args->max_pack_size, existing);
- } else {
- for_each_string_list_item(item, &existing->non_kept_packs)
- fprintf(in, "-%s.pack\n", item->string);
+ else
for_each_string_list_item(item, &existing->cruft_packs)
fprintf(in, "-%s.pack\n", item->string);
- }
+ for_each_string_list_item(item, &existing->non_kept_packs)
+ fprintf(in, "-%s.pack\n", item->string);
for_each_string_list_item(item, &existing->kept_packs)
fprintf(in, "%s.pack\n", item->string);
fclose(in);
--- >8 ---
But I think that having a small amount of duplication is a fair price to
pay for being able to see the whole input given to pack-objects outlined
in a single function.
Thanks,
Taylor
