summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/split-index.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2021-04-27Always use oidread to read into struct object_idLibravatar brian m. carlson1-1/+1
In the future, we'll want oidread to automatically set the hash algorithm member for an object ID we read into it, so ensure we use oidread instead of hashcpy everywhere we're copying a hash value into a struct object_id. Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-13use CALLOC_ARRAYLibravatar René Scharfe1-2/+2
Add and apply a semantic patch for converting code that open-codes CALLOC_ARRAY to use it instead. It shortens the code and infers the element size automatically. Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-08-18mem-pool: use more standard initialization and finalizationLibravatar Elijah Newren1-2/+4
A typical memory type, such as strbuf, hashmap, or string_list can be stored on the stack or embedded within another structure. mem_pool cannot be, because of how mem_pool_init() and mem_pool_discard() are written. mem_pool_init() does essentially the following (simplified for purposes of explanation here): void mem_pool_init(struct mem_pool **pool...) { *pool = xcalloc(1, sizeof(*pool)); It seems weird to require that mem_pools can only be accessed through a pointer. It also seems slightly dangerous: unlike strbuf_release() or strbuf_reset() or string_list_clear(), all of which put the data structure into a state where it can be re-used after the call, mem_pool_discard(pool) will leave pool pointing at free'd memory. read-cache (and split-index) are the only current users of mem_pools, and they haven't fallen into a use-after-free mistake here, but it seems likely to be problematic for future users especially since several of the current callers of mem_pool_init() will only call it when the mem_pool* is not already allocated (i.e. is NULL). This type of mechanism also prevents finding synchronization points where one can free existing memory and then resume more operations. It would be natural at such points to run something like mem_pool_discard(pool...); and, if necessary, mem_pool_init(&pool...); and then carry on continuing to use the pool. However, this fails badly if several objects had a copy of the value of pool from before these commands; in such a case, those objects won't get the updated value of pool that mem_pool_init() overwrites pool with and they'll all instead be reading and writing from free'd memory. Modify mem_pool_init()/mem_pool_discard() to behave more like strbuf_init()/strbuf_release() or string_list_init()/string_list_clear() In particular: (1) make mem_pool_init() just take a mem_pool* and have it only worry about allocating struct mp_blocks, not the struct mem_pool itself, (2) make mem_pool_discard() free the memory that the pool was responsible for, but leave it in a state where it can be used to allocate more memory afterward (without the need to call mem_pool_init() again). Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-03-07Merge branch 'nd/split-index-null-base-fix'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-16/+18
Split-index fix. * nd/split-index-null-base-fix: read-cache.c: fix writing "link" index ext with null base oid
2019-02-13read-cache.c: fix writing "link" index ext with null base oidLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-16/+18
Since commit 7db118303a (unpack_trees: fix breakage when o->src_index != o->dst_index - 2018-04-23) and changes in merge code to use separate index_state for source and destination, when doing a merge with split index activated, we may run into this line in unpack_trees(): o->result.split_index = init_split_index(&o->result); This is by itself not wrong. But this split index information is not fully populated (and it's only so when move_cache_to_base_index() is called, aka force splitting the index, or loading index_state from a file). Both "base_oid" and "base" in this case remain null. So when writing the main index down, we link to this index with null oid (default value after init_split_index()), which also means "no split index" internally. This triggers an incorrect base index refresh: warning: could not freshen shared index '.../sharedindex.0{40}' This patch makes sure we will not refresh null base_oid (because the file is never there). It also makes sure not to write "link" extension with null base_oid in the first place (no point having it at all). Read code already has protection against null base_oid. There is also another side fix in remove_split_index() that causes a crash when doing "git update-index --no-split-index" when base_oid in the index file is null. In this case we will not load istate->split_index->base but we dereference it anyway and are rewarded with a segfault. This should not happen anymore, but it's still wrong to dereference a potential NULL pointer, especially when we do check for NULL pointer in the next code. Reported-by: Luke Diamand <luke@diamand.org> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-01-02read-cache: add invalidate parameter to remove_marked_cache_entriesLibravatar Thomas Gummerer1-1/+1
When marking cache entries for removal, and later removing them all at once using 'remove_marked_cache_entries()', cache entries currently have to be invalidated manually in the cache tree and in the untracked cache. Add an invalidate flag to the function. With the flag set, the function will take care of invalidating the path in the cache tree and in the untracked cache. Note that the current callsites already do the invalidation properly in other places, so we're just passing 0 from there to keep the status quo. This will be useful in a subsequent commit. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-10-12split-index: BUG() when cache entry refers to non-existing shared entryLibravatar SZEDER Gábor1-2/+2
When the split index feature is in use, then a cache entry is: - either only present in the split index, in which case its 'index' field must be 0, - or it should refer to an existing entry in the shared index, i.e. the 'index' field can't be greater than the size of the shared index. If a cache entry were to refer to a non-existing entry in the shared index, then that's a sign of something being wrong in the index state, either as a result of a bug in dealing with the split/shared index entries, or perhaps a (potentially unrelated) memory corruption issue. prepare_to_write_split_index() already has a condition to catch cache entries with such bogus 'index' field, but instead of calling BUG() it just sets cache entry's 'index = 0', and the entry will then be written to the new split index. Don't write a new index file from bogus index state, and call BUG() upon encountering an cache entry referring to a non-existing shared index entry. Running the test suite repeatedly with 'GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=yes' doesn't trigger this condition. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-10-12split-index: smudge and add racily clean cache entries to split indexLibravatar SZEDER Gábor1-1/+41
Ever since the split index feature was introduced [1], refreshing a split index is prone to a variant of the classic racy git problem. Consider the following sequence of commands updating the split index when the shared index contains a racily clean cache entry, i.e. an entry whose cached stat data matches with the corresponding file in the worktree and the cached mtime matches that of the index: echo "cached content" >file git update-index --split-index --add file echo "dirty worktree" >file # size stays the same! # ... wait ... git update-index --add other-file Normally, when a non-split index is updated, then do_write_index() (the function responsible for writing all kinds of indexes, "regular", split, and shared) recognizes racily clean cache entries, and writes them with smudged stat data, i.e. with file size set to 0. When subsequent git commands read the index, they will notice that the smudged stat data doesn't match with the file in the worktree, and then go on to check the file's content and notice its dirtiness. In the above example, however, in the second 'git update-index' prepare_to_write_split_index() decides which cache entries stored only in the shared index should be replaced in the new split index. Alas, this function never looks out for racily clean cache entries, and since the file's stat data in the worktree hasn't changed since the shared index was written, it won't be replaced in the new split index. Consequently, do_write_index() doesn't even get this racily clean cache entry, and can't smudge its stat data. Subsequent git commands will then see that the index has more recent mtime than the file and that the (not smudged) cached stat data still matches with the file in the worktree, and, ultimately, will erroneously consider the file clean. Modify prepare_to_write_split_index() to recognize racily clean cache entries, and mark them to be added to the split index. Note that there are two places where it should check raciness: first those cache entries that are only stored in the shared index, and then those that have been copied by unpack_trees() from the shared index while it constructed a new index. This way do_write_index() will get these racily clean cache entries as well, and will then write them with smudged stat data to the new split index. This change makes all tests in 't1701-racy-split-index.sh' pass, so flip the two 'test_expect_failure' tests to success. Also add the '#' (as in nr. of trial) to those tests' description that were omitted when the tests expected failure. Note that after this change if the index is split when it contains a racily clean cache entry, then a smudged cache entry will be written both to the new shared and to the new split indexes. This doesn't affect regular git commands: as far as they are concerned this is just an entry in the split index replacing an outdated entry in the shared index. It did affect a few tests in 't1700-split-index.sh', though, because they actually check which entries are stored in the split index; a previous patch in this series has already made the necessary adjustments in 't1700'. And racily clean cache entries and index splitting are rare enough to not worry about the resulting duplicated smudged cache entries, and the additional complexity required to prevent them is not worth it. Several tests failed occasionally when the test suite was run with 'GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=yes'. Here are those that I managed to trace back to this racy split index problem, starting with those failing more frequently, with a link to a failing Travis CI build job for each. The highlighted line [2] shows when the racy file was written, which is not always in the failing test but in a preceeding setup test. t3903-stash.sh: https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/385542084#L5858 t4024-diff-optimize-common.sh: https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/386531969#L3174 t4015-diff-whitespace.sh: https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/360797600#L8215 t2200-add-update.sh: https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/382543426#L3051 t0090-cache-tree.sh: https://travis-ci.org/git/git/jobs/416583010#L3679 There might be others, e.g. perhaps 't1000-read-tree-m-3way.sh' and others using 'lib-read-tree-m-3way.sh', but I couldn't confirm yet. [1] In the branch leading to the merge commit v2.1.0-rc0~45 (Merge branch 'nd/split-index', 2014-07-16). [2] Note that those highlighted lines are in the 'after failure' fold, and your browser might unhelpfully fold it up before you could take a good look. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-10-12split-index: don't compare cached data of entries already marked for split indexLibravatar SZEDER Gábor1-17/+72
When unpack_trees() constructs a new index, it copies cache entries from the original index [1]. prepare_to_write_split_index() has to deal with this, and it has a dedicated code path for copied entries that are present in the shared index, where it compares the cached data in the corresponding copied and original entries. If the cached data matches, then they are considered the same; if it differs, then the copied entry will be marked for inclusion as a replacement entry in the just about to be written split index by setting the CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag. However, a cache entry already has its CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag set upon reading the split index, if the entry already has a replacement entry there, or upon refreshing the cached stat data, if the corresponding file was modified. The state of this flag is then preserved when unpack_trees() copies a cache entry from the shared index. So modify prepare_to_write_split_index() to check the copied cache entries' CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag first, and skip the thorough comparison of cached data if the flag is already set. Those couple of lines comparing the cached data would then have too many levels of indentation, so extract them into a helper function. Note that comparing the cached data in copied and original entries in the shared index might actually be entirely unnecessary. In theory all code paths refreshing the cached stat data of an entry in the shared index should set the CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag in that entry, and unpack_trees() should preserve this flag when copying cache entries. This means that the cached data is only ever changed if the CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag is set as well. Our test suite seems to confirm this: instrumenting the conditions in question and running the test suite repeatedly with 'GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=yes' showed that the cached data in a copied entry differs from the data in the shared entry only if its CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE flag is indeed set. In practice, however, our test suite doesn't have 100% coverage, GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX is inherently random, and I certainly can't claim to possess complete understanding of what goes on in unpack_trees()... Therefore I kept the comparison of the cached data when CE_UPDATE_IN_BASE is not set, just in case that an unnoticed or future code path were to accidentally miss setting this flag upon refreshing the cached stat data or unpack_trees() were to drop this flag while copying a cache entry. [1] Note that when unpack_trees() constructs the new index and decides that a cache entry should now refer to different content than what was recorded in the original index (e.g. 'git read-tree -m HEAD^'), then that can't really be considered a copy of the original, but rather the creation of a new entry. Notably and pertinent to the split index feature, such a new entry doesn't have a reference to the original's shared index entry anymore, i.e. its 'index' field is set to 0. Consequently, such an entry is treated by prepare_to_write_split_index() as an entry not present in the shared index and it will be added to the new split index, while the original entry will be marked as deleted, and neither the above discussion nor the changes in this patch apply to them. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-10-12split-index: count the number of deleted entriesLibravatar SZEDER Gábor1-1/+1
'struct split_index' contains the field 'nr_deletions', whose name with the 'nr_' prefix suggests that it contains the number of deleted cache entries. However, barring its initialization to 0, this field is only ever set to 1, indicating that there is at least one deleted entry, but not the number of deleted entries. Luckily, this doesn't cause any issues (other than confusing the reader, that is), because the only place reading this field uses it in the same sense, i.e.: 'if (si->nr_deletions)'. To avoid confusion, we could either rename this field to something like 'has_deletions' to make its name match its role, or make it a counter of deleted cache entries to match its name. Let's make it a counter, to keep it in sync with the related field 'nr_replacements', which does contain the number of replaced cache entries. This will also give developers debugging the split index code easy access to the number of deleted cache entries. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-03block alloc: allocate cache entries from mem_poolLibravatar Jameson Miller1-8/+42
When reading large indexes from disk, a portion of the time is dominated in malloc() calls. This can be mitigated by allocating a large block of memory and manage it ourselves via memory pools. This change moves the cache entry allocation to be on top of memory pools. Design: The index_state struct will gain a notion of an associated memory_pool from which cache_entries will be allocated from. When reading in the index from disk, we have information on the number of entries and their size, which can guide us in deciding how large our initial memory allocation should be. When an index is discarded, the associated memory_pool will be discarded as well - so the lifetime of a cache_entry is tied to the lifetime of the index_state that it was allocated for. In the case of a Split Index, the following rules are followed. 1st, some terminology is defined: Terminology: - 'the_index': represents the logical view of the index - 'split_index': represents the "base" cache entries. Read from the split index file. 'the_index' can reference a single split_index, as well as cache_entries from the split_index. `the_index` will be discarded before the `split_index` is. This means that when we are allocating cache_entries in the presence of a split index, we need to allocate the entries from the `split_index`'s memory pool. This allows us to follow the pattern that `the_index` can reference cache_entries from the `split_index`, and that the cache_entries will not be freed while they are still being referenced. Managing transient cache_entry structs: Cache entries are usually allocated for an index, but this is not always the case. Cache entries are sometimes allocated because this is the type that the existing checkout_entry function works with. Because of this, the existing code needs to handle cache entries associated with an index / memory pool, and those that only exist transiently. Several strategies were contemplated around how to handle this: Chosen approach: An extra field was added to the cache_entry type to track whether the cache_entry was allocated from a memory pool or not. This is currently an int field, as there are no more available bits in the existing ce_flags bit field. If / when more bits are needed, this new field can be turned into a proper bit field. Alternatives: 1) Do not include any information about how the cache_entry was allocated. Calling code would be responsible for tracking whether the cache_entry needed to be freed or not. Pro: No extra memory overhead to track this state Con: Extra complexity in callers to handle this correctly. The extra complexity and burden to not regress this behavior in the future was more than we wanted. 2) cache_entry would gain knowledge about which mem_pool allocated it Pro: Could (potentially) do extra logic to know when a mem_pool no longer had references to any cache_entry Con: cache_entry would grow heavier by a pointer, instead of int We didn't see a tangible benefit to this approach 3) Do not add any extra information to a cache_entry, but when freeing a cache entry, check if the memory exists in a region managed by existing mem_pools. Pro: No extra memory overhead to track state Con: Extra computation is performed when freeing cache entries We decided tracking and iterating over known memory pool regions was less desirable than adding an extra field to track this stae. Signed-off-by: Jameson Miller <jamill@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-07-03block alloc: add lifecycle APIs for cache_entry structsLibravatar Jameson Miller1-4/+4
It has been observed that the time spent loading an index with a large number of entries is partly dominated by malloc() calls. This change is in preparation for using memory pools to reduce the number of malloc() calls made to allocate cahce entries when loading an index. Add an API to allocate and discard cache entries, abstracting the details of managing the memory backing the cache entries. This commit does actually change how memory is managed - this will be done in a later commit in the series. This change makes the distinction between cache entries that are associated with an index and cache entries that are not associated with an index. A main use of cache entries is with an index, and we can optimize the memory management around this. We still have other cases where a cache entry is not persisted with an index, and so we need to handle the "transient" use case as well. To keep the congnitive overhead of managing the cache entries, there will only be a single discard function. This means there must be enough information kept with the cache entry so that we know how to discard them. A summary of the main functions in the API is: make_cache_entry: create cache entry for use in an index. Uses specified parameters to populate cache_entry fields. make_empty_cache_entry: Create an empty cache entry for use in an index. Returns cache entry with empty fields. make_transient_cache_entry: create cache entry that is not used in an index. Uses specified parameters to populate cache_entry fields. make_empty_transient_cache_entry: create cache entry that is not used in an index. Returns cache entry with empty fields. discard_cache_entry: A single function that knows how to discard a cache entry regardless of how it was allocated. Signed-off-by: Jameson Miller <jamill@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-02split-index: convert struct split_index to object_idLibravatar brian m. carlson1-5/+5
Convert the base_sha1 member of struct split_index to use struct object_id and rename it base_oid. Include cache.h to make the structure visible. Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-03-06Merge branch 'bw/c-plus-plus'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-8/+8
Avoid using identifiers that clash with C++ keywords. Even though it is not a goal to compile Git with C++ compilers, changes like this help use of code analysis tools that targets C++ on our codebase. * bw/c-plus-plus: (37 commits) replace: rename 'new' variables trailer: rename 'template' variables tempfile: rename 'template' variables wrapper: rename 'template' variables environment: rename 'namespace' variables diff: rename 'template' variables environment: rename 'template' variables init-db: rename 'template' variables unpack-trees: rename 'new' variables trailer: rename 'new' variables submodule: rename 'new' variables split-index: rename 'new' variables remote: rename 'new' variables ref-filter: rename 'new' variables read-cache: rename 'new' variables line-log: rename 'new' variables imap-send: rename 'new' variables http: rename 'new' variables entry: rename 'new' variables diffcore-delta: rename 'new' variables ...
2018-02-22split-index: rename 'new' variablesLibravatar Brandon Williams1-8/+8
Rename C++ keyword in order to bring the codebase closer to being able to be compiled with a C++ compiler. Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-01-19split-index: don't write cache tree with null oid entriesLibravatar Thomas Gummerer1-0/+2
In a96d3cc3f6 ("cache-tree: reject entries with null sha1", 2017-04-21) we made sure that broken cache entries do not get propagated to new trees. Part of that was making sure not to re-use an existing cache tree that includes a null oid. It did so by dropping the cache tree in 'do_write_index()' if one of the entries contains a null oid. In split index mode however, there are two invocations to 'do_write_index()', one for the shared index and one for the split index. The cache tree is only written once, to the split index. As we only loop through the elements that are effectively being written by the current invocation, that may not include the entry with a null oid in the split index (when it is already written to the shared index), where we write the cache tree. Therefore in split index mode we may still end up writing the cache tree, even though there is an entry with a null oid in the index. Fix this by checking for null oids in prepare_to_write_split_index, where we loop the entries of the shared index as well as the entries for the split index. This fixes t7009 with GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX. Also add a new test that's more specifically showing the problem. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-06-24Merge branch 'ab/free-and-null'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+1
A common pattern to free a piece of memory and assign NULL to the pointer that used to point at it has been replaced with a new FREE_AND_NULL() macro. * ab/free-and-null: *.[ch] refactoring: make use of the FREE_AND_NULL() macro coccinelle: make use of the "expression" FREE_AND_NULL() rule coccinelle: add a rule to make "expression" code use FREE_AND_NULL() coccinelle: make use of the "type" FREE_AND_NULL() rule coccinelle: add a rule to make "type" code use FREE_AND_NULL() git-compat-util: add a FREE_AND_NULL() wrapper around free(ptr); ptr = NULL
2017-06-24Revert "split-index: add and use unshare_split_index()"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-44/+13
This reverts commit f9d7abec2ad2f9eb3d8873169cc28c34273df082; see public-inbox.org/git/CAP8UFD0bOfzY-_hBDKddOcJdPUpP2KEVaX_SrCgvAMYAHtseiQ@mail.gmail.com
2017-06-16*.[ch] refactoring: make use of the FREE_AND_NULL() macroLibravatar Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason1-2/+1
Replace occurrences of `free(ptr); ptr = NULL` which weren't caught by the coccinelle rule. These fall into two categories: - free/NULL assignments one after the other which coccinelle all put on one line, which is functionally equivalent code, but very ugly. - manually spotted occurrences where the NULL assignment isn't right after the free() call. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-05-08split-index: add and use unshare_split_index()Libravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-13/+44
When split-index is being used, we have two cache_entry arrays in index_state->cache[] and index_state->split_index->base->cache[]. index_state->cache[] may share the same entries with base->cache[] so we can quickly determine what entries are shared. This makes memory management tricky, we can't free base->cache[] until we know index_state->cache[] does not point to any of those entries. unshare_split_index() is added for this purpose, to find shared entries and either duplicate them in index_state->cache[], or discard them. Either way it should be safe to free base->cache[] after unshare_split_index(). Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-03-01split-index: add {add,remove}_split_index() functionsLibravatar Christian Couder1-0/+22
Also use the functions in cmd_update_index() in builtin/update-index.c. These functions will be used in a following commit to tweak our use of the split-index feature depending on the setting of a configuration variable. Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-11-01split-index: s/eith/with/ typo fixLibravatar Christian Couder1-1/+1
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-09-25use COPY_ARRAYLibravatar René Scharfe1-4/+2
Add a semantic patch for converting certain calls of memcpy(3) to COPY_ARRAY() and apply that transformation to the code base. The result is shorter and safer code. For now only consider calls where source and destination have the same type, or in other words: easy cases. Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-05-06typofix: assorted typofixes in comments, documentation and messagesLibravatar Li Peng1-1/+1
Many instances of duplicate words (e.g. "the the path") and a few typoes are fixed, originally in multiple patches. wildmatch: fix duplicate words of "the" t: fix duplicate words of "output" transport-helper: fix duplicate words of "read" Git.pm: fix duplicate words of "return" path: fix duplicate words of "look" pack-protocol.txt: fix duplicate words of "the" precompose-utf8: fix typo of "sequences" split-index: fix typo worktree.c: fix typo remote-ext: fix typo utf8: fix duplicate words of "the" git-cvsserver: fix duplicate words Signed-off-by: Li Peng <lip@dtdream.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-03-12ewah: add convenient wrapper ewah_serialize_strbuf()Libravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-9/+2
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-06-13update-index: new options to enable/disable split index modeLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-0/+23
If you have a large work tree but only make changes in a subset, then $GIT_DIR/index's size should be stable after a while. If you change branches that touch something else, $GIT_DIR/index's size may grow large that it becomes as slow as the unified index. Do --split-index again occasionally to force all changes back to the shared index and keep $GIT_DIR/index small. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-06-13split-index: strip pathname of on-disk replaced entriesLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-2/+12
We know the positions of replaced entries via the replace bitmap in "link" extension, so the "name" path does not have to be stored (it's still in the shared index). With this, we also have a way to distinguish additions vs replacements at load time and can catch broken "link" extensions. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-06-13split-index: do not invalidate cache-tree at read timeLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-0/+1
We are sure that after merge_base_index() is done. cache-tree can still be used with the final index. So don't destroy cache tree. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-06-13split-index: the reading partLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-2/+82
CE_REMOVE'd entries are removed here because only parts of the code base (unpack_trees in fact) test this bit when they look for the presence of an entry. Leaving them may confuse the code ignores this bit and expects to see a real entry. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-06-13split-index: the writing partLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-2/+99
prepare_to_write_split_index() does the major work, classifying deleted, updated and added entries. write_link_extension() then just writes it down. An observation is, deleting an entry, then adding it back is recorded as "entry X is deleted, entry X is added", not "entry X is replaced". This is simpler, with small overhead: a replaced entry is stored without its path, a new entry is store with its path. A note about unpack_trees() and the deduplication code inside prepare_to_write_split_index(). Usually tracking updated/removed entries via read-cache API is enough. unpack_trees() manipulates the index in a different way: it throws the entire source index out, builds up a new one, copying/duplicating entries (using dup_entry) from the source index over if necessary, then returns the new index. A naive solution would be marking the entire source index "deleted" and add their duplicates as new. That could bring $GIT_DIR/index back to the original size. So we try harder and memcmp() between the original and the duplicate to see if it needs updating. We could avoid memcmp() too, by avoiding duplicating the original entry in dup_entry(). The performance gain this way is within noise level and it complicates unpack-trees.c. So memcmp() is the preferred way to deal with deduplication. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-06-13read-cache: mark updated entries for split indexLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-0/+15
The large part of this patch just follows CE_ENTRY_CHANGED marks. replace_index_entry() is updated to update split_index->base->cache[] as well so base->cache[] does not reference to a freed entry. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-06-13read-cache: save deleted entries in split indexLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-0/+12
Entries that belong to the base index should not be freed. Mark CE_REMOVE to track them. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-06-13read-cache: split-index modeLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-0/+90
This split-index mode is designed to keep write cost proportional to the number of changes the user has made, not the size of the work tree. (Read cost is another matter, to be dealt separately.) This mode stores index info in a pair of $GIT_DIR/index and $GIT_DIR/sharedindex.<SHA-1>. sharedindex is large and unchanged over time while "index" is smaller and updated often. Format details are in index-format.txt, although not everything is implemented in this patch. Shared indexes are not automatically removed, because it's unclear if the shared index is needed by any (even temporary) indexes by just looking at it. After a while you'll collect stale shared indexes. The good news is one shared index is useable for long, until $GIT_DIR/index becomes too big and sluggish that the new shared index must be created. The safest way to clean shared indexes is to turn off split index mode, so shared files are all garbage, delete them all, then turn on split index mode again. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>