| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
assert() can succinctly document expectations for the code, and do so in
a way that may be useful to future folks trying to refactor the code and
change basic assumptions; it allows them to more quickly find some
places where their violations of previous assumptions trips things up.
Unfortunately, assert() can surround a function call with important
side-effects, which is a huge mistake since some users will compile with
assertions disabled. I've had to debug such mistakes before in other
codebases, so I should know better. Luckily, this was only in test
code, but it's still very embarrassing. Change an assert() to an if
(...) BUG (...).
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Remembering renames on the upstream side of history in an early merge of
a rebase or cherry-pick for re-use in a latter merge of the same
operation makes pretty good intuitive sense. However, trying to show
that it doesn't cause some subtle behavioral difference or some funny
edge or corner case is much more involved. And, in fact, it does
introduce a subtle behavioral change.
Document all the assumptions, special cases, and logic involved in such
an optimization, and describe why this optimization is safe under the
current optimizations/features/etc. -- even when the subtle behavioral
change is triggered.
Part of the point of adding this document that goes over the
optimization in such laborious detail, is that it is possible that
significant future changes (optimizations or feature changes) could
interact with this optimization in interesting ways; this document is
here to help folks making big changes sanity check that the assumptions
and arguments underlying this optimization are still valid. (As a side
note, creating this document forced me to review things in sufficient
detail that I found I was not properly caching directory-rename-induced
renames, resulting in the code not being aware of those renames and
causing unnecessary diffcore_rename_extended() calls in subsequent
merges.)
A subsequent commit will add several testcases based on this document
meant to stress-test the implementation and also document the case with
the subtle behavioral change.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Add a new testcase where one side of history renames:
olddir/ -> newdir/
and the other side of history renames:
olddir/a -> olddir/alpha
When using merge.directoryRenames=true, it seems logical to expect the
file to end up at newdir/alpha. Unfortunately, both merge-recursive and
merge-ort currently see this as a rename/rename conflict:
olddir/a -> newdir/a
vs.
olddir/a -> newdir/alpha
Suggesting that there's some extra logic we probably want to add
somewhere to allow this case to run without triggering a conflict. For
now simply document this known issue.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
In preparation for switching from merge-recursive to merge-ort as the
default strategy, have the testsuite default to running with merge-ort.
Keep coverage of the recursive backend by having the linux-gcc job run
with it.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When we started on merge-ort, thousands of tests failed when run with
the GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM=ort flag; with so many, it didn't make
sense to flip all their test expectations. The ones in t6409, t6418,
and the submodule tests are being handled by an independent in-flight
topic ("Complete merge-ort implemenation...almost"). The ones in
t6423 were left out of the other series because other ongoing series
that this commit depends upon were addressing those. Now that we only
have one remaining test failure in t6423, let's mark it as such.
This remaining test will be fixed by a future optimization series, but
since merge-recursive doesn't pass this test either, passing it is not
necessary for declaring merge-ort ready for general use.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
This reverts commit 5ced7c3da009090c5a926e3123a71314c7f28d42, which was
put in place as a temporary measure to avoid optimizations unstably
erroring out on no destination having a majority of the necessary
renames for directories that had no new files and thus no need for
directory rename detection anyway. Now that optimizations are in place
to prevent us from trying to compute directory rename count computations
for directories that do not need it, we can undo this temporary measure.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The plan is to just delete merge-recursive, but not until everyone is
comfortable with merge-ort as a replacement. Given that I haven't
switched all callers of merge-recursive over yet (e.g. git-am still uses
merge-recursive), maybe there's some value documenting known bugs in the
algorithm in case we end up keeping it or someone wants to dig it up in
the future.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
There are a variety of questions users might ask while resolving
conflicts:
* What changes have been made since the previous (first) parent?
* What changes are staged?
* What is still unstaged? (or what is still conflicted?)
* What changes did I make to resolve conflicts so far?
The first three of these have simple answers:
* git diff HEAD
* git diff --cached
* git diff
There was no way to answer the final question previously. Adding one
is trivial in merge-ort, since it works by creating a tree representing
what should be written to the working copy complete with conflict
markers. Simply write that tree to .git/AUTO_MERGE, allowing users to
answer the fourth question with
* git diff AUTO_MERGE
I avoided using a name like "MERGE_AUTO", because that would be
merge-specific (much like MERGE_HEAD, REBASE_HEAD, REVERT_HEAD,
CHERRY_PICK_HEAD) and I wanted a name that didn't change depending on
which type of operation the merge was part of.
Ensure that paths which clean out other temporary operation-specific
files (e.g. CHERRY_PICK_HEAD, MERGE_MSG, rebase-merge/ state directory)
also clean out this AUTO_MERGE file.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
merge-ort handles submodules (and directory/file conflicts in general)
differently than merge-recursive does; it basically puts all the special
handling for different filetypes into one place in the codebase instead
of needing special handling for different filetypes in many different
code paths. This one code path in merge-ort could perhaps use some work
still (there are still test_expect_failure cases in the testsuite), but
it passes all the tests that merge-recursive does as well as 12
additional ones that merge-recursive fails. Mark those 12 tests as
test_expect_success under merge-ort.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When merge conflicts occur in paths removed by a sparse-checkout, we
need to unsparsify those paths (clear the SKIP_WORKTREE bit), and write
out the conflicted file to the working copy. In the very unlikely case
that someone manually put a file into the working copy at the location
of the SKIP_WORKTREE file, we need to avoid overwriting whatever edits
they have made and move that file to a different location first.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
If there is a conflict during a merge for a SKIP_WORKTREE entry, we
expect that file to be written to the working copy and have the
SKIP_WORKTREE bit cleared in the index. If the user had manually
created a file in the working tree despite SKIP_WORKTREE being set, we
do not want to clobber their changes to that file, but want to move it
out of the way. Add tests that check for these behaviors.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
merge-recursive has some simple code to support subtree shifting; copy
it over to merge-ort. This fixes t6409.12 under
GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM=ort.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When we have a modify/delete conflict, but the only change to the
modification is e.g. change of line endings, then if renormalization is
requested then we should be able to recognize such a case as a
not-modified/delete and resolve the conflict automatically.
This fixes t6418.10 under GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM=ort.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
ll_merge() needs an index when renormalization is requested. Create one
specifically for just this purpose with just the one needed entry. This
fixes t6418.4 and t6418.5 under GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM=ort.
NOTE 1: Even if the user has a working copy or a real index (which is
not a given as merge-ort can be used in bare repositories), we
explicitly ignore any .gitattributes file from either of these
locations. merge-ort can be used to merge two branches that are
unrelated to HEAD, so .gitattributes from the working copy and current
index should not be considered relevant.
NOTE 2: Since we are in the middle of merging, there is a risk that
.gitattributes itself is conflicted...leaving us with an ill-defined
situation about how to perform the rest of the merge. It could be that
the .gitattributes file does not even exist on one of the sides of the
merge, or that it has been modified on both sides. If it's been
modified on both sides, it's possible that it could itself be merged
cleanly, though it's also possible that it only merges cleanly if you
use the right version of the .gitattributes file to drive the merge. It
gets kind of complicated. The only test we ever had that attempted to
test behavior in this area was seemingly unaware of the undefined
behavior, but knew the test wouldn't work for lack of attribute handling
support, marked it as test_expect_failure from the beginning, but
managed to fail for several reasons unrelated to attribute handling.
See commit 6f6e7cfb52 ("t6038: remove problematic test", 2020-08-03) for
details. So there are probably various ways to improve what
initialize_attr_index() picks in the case of a conflicted .gitattributes
but for now I just implemented something simple -- look for whatever
.gitattributes file we can find in any of the higher order stages and
use it.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
renormalize_buffer() requires an index_state, which is something that
merge-ort does not operate with. However, all the renormalization code
needs is an index with a .gitattributes file...plus a little bit of
setup. Create such an index, along with the deallocation and
attr_direction handling.
A subsequent commit will add a function to finish the initialization
of this index.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
rename/rename conflict handling depends on the fact that if both sides
renamed the same path, that the one on the MERGE_SIDE1 will appear first
in the combined diff_queue_struct passed to process_renames(). Since we
add all pairs from MERGE_SIDE1 to combined first, and then all pairs
from MERGE_SIDE2, and then sort based on filename, this will only be
true if the sort used is stable. This was found due to the fact that
Mac, unlike Linux, apparently has a system-defined qsort that is not
stable.
While we are at it, review the other callers of QSORT and add comments
about why they can remain as calls to QSORT instead of being modified
to call STABLE_QSORT.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
As noted a few commits ago ("diffcore-rename: only compute
dir_rename_count for relevant directories"), when a source file rename
is used as part of directory rename detection, we need to increment
counts for each ancestor directory in dirs_removed with value
RELEVANT_FOR_SELF. However, a few commits ago ("diffcore-rename: check
if we have enough renames for directories early on"), we may have
downgraded all relevant ancestor directories from RELEVANT_FOR_SELF to
RELEVANT_FOR_ANCESTOR.
For a given file, if no ancestor directory is found in dirs_removed with
a value of RELEVANT_FOR_SELF, then we can downgrade
relevant_source[PATH] from RELEVANT_LOCATION to RELEVANT_NO_MORE. This
means we can skip detecting a rename for that particular path (and any
other paths in the same directory).
For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin
performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28),
this change improves the performance as follows:
Before After
no-renames: 5.680 s ± 0.096 s 5.665 s ± 0.129 s
mega-renames: 13.812 s ± 0.162 s 11.435 s ± 0.158 s
just-one-mega: 506.0 ms ± 3.9 ms 494.2 ms ± 6.1 ms
While this improvement looks rather modest for these testcases (because
all the previous optimizations were sufficient to nearly remove all time
spent in rename detection already), consider this alternative testcase
tweaked from the ones in commit 557ac0350d as follows
<Same initial setup as commit 557ac0350d, then...>
$ git switch -c add-empty-file v5.5
$ >drivers/gpu/drm/i915/new-empty-file
$ git add drivers/gpu/drm/i915/new-empty-file
$ git commit -m "new file"
$ git switch 5.4-rename
$ git cherry-pick --strategy=ort add-empty-file
For this testcase, we see the following improvement:
Before After
pick-empty: 1.936 s ± 0.024 s 688.1 ms ± 4.2 ms
So roughly a factor of 3 speedup. At $DAYJOB, there was a particular
repository and cherry-pick that inspired this optimization; for that
case I saw a speedup factor of 7 with this optimization.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
There are two different reasons we might want a rename for a file -- for
three-way content merging or as part of directory rename detection.
Record the reason. diffcore-rename will potentially be able to filter
some of the ones marked as needed only for directory rename detection,
if it can determine those directory renames based solely on renames
found via exact rename detection and basename-guided rename detection.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The previous commit can only be effective if we have a computation of
the number of paths under a given directory which are still have pending
renames, and expected this number to be recorded in the dir_rename_count
map under the key UNKNOWN_DIR. Add the code necessary to compute these
values.
Note that this change means dir_rename_count might have a directory
whose only entry (for UNKNOWN_DIR) was removed by the time merge-ort
goes to check it. To account for this, merge-ort needs to check for the
case where the max count is 0.
With this change we are now computing the necessary value for each
directory in dirs_removed, but are not using that value anywhere. The
next two commits will make use of the values stored in dirs_removed in
order to compute whether each relevant_source (that is needed only for
directory rename detection) has become unnecessary.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
As noted in the past few commits, if we can determine that a directory
already has enough renames to determine how directory rename detection
will be decided for that directory, then we can mark that directory as
no longer needing any more renames detected for files underneath it.
For such directories, we change the value in the dirs_removed map from
RELEVANT_TO_SELF to RELEVANT_FOR_ANCESTOR.
A subsequent patch will use this information while iterating over the
remaining potential rename sources to mark ones that were only
location_relevant as unneeded if no containing directory is still marked
as RELEVANT_TO_SELF.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When one side adds files to a directory that the other side renamed,
directory rename detection is used to either move the new paths to the
newer directory or warn the user about the fact that another path
location might be better.
If a parent of the given directory had new files added to it, any
renames in the current directory are also part of determining where the
parent directory is renamed to. Thus, naively, we need to record each
rename N times for a path at depth N. However, we can use the
additional information added to dirs_removed in the last commit to avoid
traversing all N parent directories in many cases. Let's use an example
to explain how this works. If we have a path named
src/old_dir/a/b/file.c
and src/old_dir doesn't exist on one side of history, but the other
added a file named src/old_dir/newfile.c, then if one side renamed
src/old_dir/a/b/file.c => source/new_dir/a/b/file.c
then this file would affect potential directory rename detection counts
for
src/old_dir/a/b => source/new_dir/a/b
src/old_dir/a => source/new_dir/a
src/old_dir => source/new_dir
src => source
adding a weight of 1 to each in dir_rename_counts. However, if src/
exists on both sides of history, then we don't need to track any entries
for it in dir_rename_counts. That was implemented previously. What we
are adding now, is that if no new files were added to src/old_dir/a or
src/old_dir/b, then we don't need to have counts in dir_rename_count
for those directories either.
In short, we only need to track counts in dir_rename_count for
directories whose dirs_removed value is RELEVANT_FOR_SELF. And as soon
as we reach a directory that isn't in dirs_removed (signalled by
returning the default value of NOT_RELEVANT from strintmap_get()), we
can stop looking any further up the directory hierarchy.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of
history added files to the old directory, directory rename detection is
used to warn about the location of the added files so the user can
move them to the old directory or keep them with the new one.
This sets up three different types of directories:
* directories that had new files added to them
* directories underneath a directory that had new files added to them
* directories where no new files were added to it or any leading path
Save this information in dirs_removed; the next several commits will
make use of this information.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
As noted in the previous commit, we want to be able to take advantage of
the "majority rules" portion of directory rename detection to avoid
detecting more renames than necessary. However, for diffcore-rename to
take advantage of that, it needs to know whether a rename source file
was needed for just directory rename detection reasons, or if it is
wanted for potential three-way content merging. Modify relevant_sources
from a strset to a strintmap, so we can encode additional information.
We also modify dirs_removed from a strset to a strintmap at the same
time because trying to determine what files are needed for directory
rename detection will require us tracking a bit more information for
each directory.
This commit only changes the types of the two variables from strset to
strintmap; it does not actually store any special values yet and for now
only checks for presence of entries in the strintmap. Thus, the code is
functionally identical to how it behaved before. Future commits will
start associating values with each key for these two maps.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
In directory rename detection (when a directory is removed on one side
of history and the other side adds new files to that directory), we work
to find where the greatest number of files within that directory were
renamed to so that the new files can be moved with the majority of the
files.
Naively, we can just do this by detecting renames for *all* files within
the removed/renamed directory, looking at all the destination
directories where files within that directory were moved, and if there
is more than one such directory then taking the one with the greatest
number of files as the directory where the old directory was renamed to.
However, sometimes there are enough renames from exact rename detection
or basename-guided rename detection that we have enough information to
determine the majority winner already. Add a function meant to compute
whether particular renames are still needed based on this majority rules
check. The next several commits will then add the necessary
infrastructure to get the information we need to compute which
additional rename sources we can skip.
An important side note for future further optimization:
There is a possible improvement to this optimization that I have not yet
attempted and will not be included in this series of patches: we could
first check whether exact renames provide enough information for us to
determine directory renames, and avoid doing basename-guided rename
detection on some or all of the RELEVANT_LOCATION files within those
directories. In effect, this variant would mean doing the
handle_early_known_dir_renames() both after exact rename detection and
again after basename-guided rename detection, though it would also mean
decrementing the number of "unknown" renames for each rename we found
from basename-guided rename detection. Adding this additional check for
skippable renames right after exact rename detection might turn out to
be valuable, especially for partial clones where it might allow us to
download certain source files entirely. However, this particular
optimization was actually the last one I did in original implementation
order, and by the time I implemented this idea, every testcase I had was
sufficiently fast that further optimization was unwarranted. If future
testcases arise that tax rename detection more heavily (or perhaps
partial clones can benefit from avoiding loading more objects), it may
be worth implementing this more involved variant.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The basename comparison optimization implemented in
find_basename_matches() is very beneficial since it allows a source to
sometimes only be compared with one other file instead of N other files.
When a match is found, both a source and destination can be removed from
the matrix of inexact rename comparisons. In contrast, the irrelevant
source optimization only allows us to remove a source from the matrix of
inexact rename comparisons...but it has the advantage of allowing a
source file to not even be loaded into memory at all and be compared to
0 other files. Generally, not even comparing is a bigger performance
win, so when both optimizations could apply, prefer to use the
irrelevant-source optimization.
For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin
performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28),
this change improves the performance as follows:
Before After
no-renames: 5.708 s ± 0.111 s 5.680 s ± 0.096 s
mega-renames: 102.171 s ± 0.440 s 13.812 s ± 0.162 s
just-one-mega: 3.471 s ± 0.015 s 506.0 ms ± 3.9 ms
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
diffcore_rename_extended() will do a bunch of setup, then check for
exact renames, then abort before inexact rename detection if there are
no more sources or destinations that need to be matched. It will
sometimes be the case, however, that either
* we start with neither any sources or destinations
* we start with no *relevant* sources
In the first of these two cases, the setup and exact rename detection
will be very cheap since there are 0 files to operate on. In the second
case, it is quite possible to have thousands of files with none of the
source ones being relevant. Avoid calling diffcore_rename_extended() or
even some of the setup before diffcore_rename_extended() when we can
determine that rename detection is unnecessary.
For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin
performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28),
this change improves the performance as follows:
Before After
no-renames: 6.003 s ± 0.048 s 5.708 s ± 0.111 s
mega-renames: 114.009 s ± 0.236 s 102.171 s ± 0.440 s
just-one-mega: 3.489 s ± 0.017 s 3.471 s ± 0.015 s
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The past several commits determined conditions when rename sources might
be needed, and filled a relevant_sources strset with those paths. Pass
these along to diffcore_rename_extended() to use to limit the sources
that we need to detect renames for.
For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin
performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28),
this change improves the performance as follows:
Before After
no-renames: 12.596 s ± 0.061 s 6.003 s ± 0.048 s
mega-renames: 130.465 s ± 0.259 s 114.009 s ± 0.236 s
just-one-mega: 3.958 s ± 0.010 s 3.489 s ± 0.017 s
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history
renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old
directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new
directory. This leads to the following important observation:
* If the other side does not add any new files under the old
directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory.
Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement:
* If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been
renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or
Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more
details).
Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename
detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the
merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask ==
5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the
side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or
filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because
we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and
won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into
that directory. So, we save
dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1
when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look
for cases of
filemask == dir_rename_mask
One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs
directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all
subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules"
decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies.
We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit
such a directory.
The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable
named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one
of the following values as we traverse into a directory:
* 0x00: directory rename detection not needed
* 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added
* 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed
We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark
location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Add traverse_trees_wrapper() and traverse_trees_wrapper_callback()
functions. The former runs traverse_trees() with info->fn set to
traverse_trees_wrapper_callback, in order to simply save all the entries
without processing or recursing into any of them. This step allows
extra computation to be done (e.g. checking some condition across all
files) that can be used later. Then, after that is completed, it
iterates over all the saved entries and calls the original info->fn
callback with the saved data.
Currently, this does nothing more than marginally slowing down the tree
traversal since we do not take advantage of the opportunity to compute
anything special in traverse_trees_wrapper_callback(), and thus the real
callback will be called identically as it would have been without this
extra wrapper. However, a subsequent commit will add some special
computation of some values that the real callback will be able to use.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
In order to determine whether directory rename detection is needed, we
as a pre-requisite need a way to traverse through all the files in a
given tree before visiting any directories within that tree.
traverse_trees() only iterates through the entries in the order they
appear, so add some data structures that will store all the entries as
we iterate through them in traverse_trees(), which will allow us to
re-traverse them in our desired order.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or
"sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking
similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames.
This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a
given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix.
However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that
detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information
and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix.
To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in
two ways:
* directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a
directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that
directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to
chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move
to the new one.
* three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging
of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of
history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is
found under a different path than in the merge base or on the
other side of history.
Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are
relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of
needed renames.
Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on
the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as
needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to
narrow that down more.
The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on
*both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both
sides? There are two possibilities:
* If it wasn't modified on the renamed side:
-> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap.
* If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side:
-> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant
That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a
case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant.
Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated
object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file
is missing in that commit):
old.c new.c
MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000
MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000
MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7
If the rename *isn't* detected:
then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on
the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we
should keep as-is.
If the rename *is* detected:
then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the
file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge
will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated
object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c,
while removing old.c from the directory.
Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c'
with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename
is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed
side.
Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for
each source created in add_pair().
It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or
corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename
detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result,
but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods
were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were
thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work
involved the following:
* bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename
conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit
ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04),
and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more
flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and
e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts
involving pair renames", 2020-08-10)
* making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete
as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with
rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f
("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort
backend", 2020-10-26)
Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed
down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to
diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent
commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory
rename detection reasons.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Add the ability to diffcore_rename_extended() to allow external callers
to declare that they only need renames detected for a subset of source
files, and use that information to skip detecting renames for them.
There are two important pieces to this optimization that may not be
obvious at first glance:
* We do not require callers to just filter the filepairs out
to remove the non-relevant sources, because exact rename detection
is fast and when it finds a match it can remove both a source and a
destination whereas the relevant_sources filter can only remove a
source.
* We need to filter out the source pairs in a preliminary pass instead
of adding a
strset_contains(relevant_sources, one->path)
check within the nested matrix loop. The reason for that is if we
have 30k renames, doing 30k * 30k = 900M strset_contains() calls
becomes extraordinarily expensive and defeats the performance gains
from this change; we only want to do 30k such calls instead.
If callers pass NULL for relevant_sources, that is special cases to
treat all sources as relevant. Since all callers currently pass NULL,
this optimization does not yet have any effect. Subsequent commits will
have merge-ort compute a set of relevant_sources to restrict which
sources we detect renames for, and have merge-ort pass that set of
relevant_sources to diffcore_rename_extended().
A note about filtering order:
Some may be curious why we don't filter out irrelevant sources at the
same time we filter out exact renames. While that technically could be
done at this point, there are two reasons to defer it:
First, was to reinforce a lesson that was too easy to forget. As I
mentioned above, in the past I filtered irrelevant sources out before
exact rename checking, and then discovered that exact renames' ability
to remove both sources and destinations was an important consideration
and thus doing the filtering after exact rename checking would speed
things up. Then at some point I realized that basename matching could
also remove both sources and destinations, and decided to put irrelevant
source filtering after basename filtering. That slowed things down a
lot. But, despite learning about this important ordering, in later
restructuring I forgot and made the same mistake of putting the
filtering after basename guided rename detection again. So, I have this
series of patches structured to do the irrelevant filtering last to
start to show how much extra it costs, and then add relevant filtering
in to find_basename_matches() to show how much it speeds things up.
Basically, it's a way to reinforce something that apparently was too
easy to forget, and make sure the commit messages record this lesson.
Second, the items in the "relevant_sources" in this patch series will
include all sources that *might be* relevant. It has to be conservative
and catch anything that might need a rename, but in the patch series
after this one we'll find ways to weed out more of the *might be*
relevant ones. Unfortunately, merge-ort does not have sufficient
information to weed those ones out, and there isn't enough information
at the time of filtering exact renames out to remove the extra ones
either. It has to be deferred. So the deferral is in part to simplify
some later additions.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
dir_rename_counts has a mapping of a mapping, in particular, it has
old_dir => { new_dir => count }
We want a simple mapping of
old_dir => new_dir
based on which new_dir had the highest count for a given old_dir.
Compute this and store it in dir_rename_guess.
This is the final piece of the puzzle needed to make our guesses at
which directory files have been moved to when basenames aren't unique.
For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin
performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28),
this change improves the performance as follows:
Before After
no-renames: 12.775 s ± 0.062 s 12.596 s ± 0.061 s
mega-renames: 188.754 s ± 0.284 s 130.465 s ± 0.259 s
just-one-mega: 5.599 s ± 0.019 s 3.958 s ± 0.010 s
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
We are using dir_rename_counts to count the number of other directories
that files within a directory moved to. We only need this information
for directories that disappeared, though, so we can return early from
update_dir_rename_counts() for other paths.
If dirs_removed is passed to diffcore_rename_extended(), then it
provides the relevant bits of information for us to limit this counting
to relevant dirs. If dirs_removed is not passed, we would need to
compute some replacement in order to do this limiting. Introduce a new
info->relevant_source_dirs variable for this purpose, even though at
this stage we will only set it to dirs_removed for simplicity.
Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
Elijah Newren