Skip to content

G
git

李少辉-开发者 / git
与 Fork 源项目一致

从无法访问的项目Fork

通知 2
Star 1
Fork 0
G
git

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 12 8月, 2016 1 次提交
    • J
      gc: default aggressive depth to 50 · 07e7dbf0
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      This commit message is long and has lots of background and
numbers. The summary is: the current default of 250 doesn't
save much space, and costs CPU. It's not a good tradeoff.
Read on for details.

The "--aggressive" flag to git-gc does three things:

  1. use "-f" to throw out existing deltas and recompute from
     scratch

  2. use "--window=250" to look harder for deltas

  3. use "--depth=250" to make longer delta chains

Items (1) and (2) are good matches for an "aggressive"
repack. They ask the repack to do more computation work in
the hopes of getting a better pack. You pay the costs during
the repack, and other operations see only the benefit.

Item (3) is not so clear. Allowing longer chains means fewer
restrictions on the deltas, which means potentially finding
better ones and saving some space. But it also means that
operations which access the deltas have to follow longer
chains, which affects their performance. So it's a tradeoff,
and it's not clear that the tradeoff is even a good one.

The existing "250" numbers for "--aggressive" come
originally from this thread:

  http://public-inbox.org/git/alpine.LFD.0.9999.0712060803430.13796@woody.linux-foundation.org/

where Linus says:

  So when I said "--depth=250 --window=250", I chose those
  numbers more as an example of extremely aggressive
  packing, and I'm not at all sure that the end result is
  necessarily wonderfully usable. It's going to save disk
  space (and network bandwidth - the delta's will be re-used
  for the network protocol too!), but there are definitely
  downsides too, and using long delta chains may
  simply not be worth it in practice.

There are some numbers in that thread, but they're mostly
focused on the improved window size, and measure the
improvement from --depth=250 and --window=250 together.
E.g.:

  http://public-inbox.org/git/9e4733910712062006l651571f3w7f76ce64c6650dff@mail.gmail.com/

talks about the improved run-time of "git-blame", which
comes from the reduced pack size. But most of that reduction
is coming from --window=250, whereas most of the extra costs
come from --depth=250. There's a link in that thread showing
that increasing the depth beyond 50 doesn't seem to help
much with the size:

  https://vcscompare.blogspot.com/2008/06/git-repack-parameters.html

but again, no discussion of the timing impact.

In an earlier thread from Ted Ts'o which discussed setting
the non-aggressive default (from 10 to 50):

  http://public-inbox.org/git/20070509134958.GA21489%40thunk.org/

we have more numbers, with the conclusion that going past 50
does not help size much, and hurts the speed of normal
operations.

So from that, we might guess that 50 is actually a sweet
spot, even for aggressive, if we interpret aggressive to
"spend time now to make a better pack". It is not clear that
"--depth=250" is actually a better pack. It may be slightly
_smaller_, but it carries a run-time penalty.

Here are some more recent timings I did to verify that. They
show three things:

  - the size of the resulting pack (so disk saved to store,
    bandwidth saved on clones/fetches)

  - the cost of "rev-list --objects --all", which shows the
    effect of the delta chains on trees (commits typically
    don't delta, and the command doesn't touch the blobs at
    all)

  - the cost of "log -Sfoo", which will additionally access
    each blob

All cases were repacked with "git repack -adf --depth=$d
--window=250" (so basically, what would happen if we tweaked
the "gc --aggressive" default depth).

The timings are all wall-clock best-of-3. The machine itself
has plenty of RAM compared to the repositories (which is
probably typical of most workstations these days), so we're
really measuring CPU usage, as the whole thing will be in
disk cache after the first run.

The core.deltaBaseCacheLimit is at its default of 96MiB.
It's possible that tweaking it would have some impact on the
tests, as some of them (especially "log -S" on a large repo)
are likely to overflow that. But bumping that carries a
run-time memory cost, so for these tests, I focused on what
we could do just with the on-disk pack tradeoffs.

Each test is done for four depths: 250 (the current value),
50 (the current default that tested well previously), 100
(to show something on the larger side, which previous tests
showed was not a good tradeoff), and 10 (the very old
default, which previous tests showed was worse than 50).

Here are the numbers for linux.git:

   depth |  size |  %    | rev-list |  %     | log -Sfoo |   %
  -------+-------+-------+----------+--------+-----------+-------
    250  | 967MB |  n/a  | 48.159s  |   n/a  | 378.088   |   n/a
    100  | 971MB | +0.4% | 41.471s  | -13.9% | 342.060   |  -9.5%
     50  | 979MB | +1.2% | 37.778s  | -21.6% | 311.040s  | -17.7%
     10  | 1.1GB | +6.6% | 32.518s  | -32.5% | 279.890s  | -25.9%

and for git.git:

   depth |  size |  %    | rev-list |  %     | log -Sfoo |   %
  -------+-------+-------+----------+--------+-----------+-------
    250  |  48MB |  n/a  |  2.215s  |   n/a  |  20.922s  |   n/a
    100  |  49MB | +0.5% |  2.140s  |  -3.4% |  17.736s  | -15.2%
     50  |  49MB | +1.7% |  2.099s  |  -5.2% |  15.418s  | -26.3%
     10  |  53MB | +9.3% |  2.001s  |  -9.7% |  12.677s  | -39.4%

You can see that that the CPU savings for regular operations improves as we
decrease the depth. The savings are less for "rev-list" on a smaller repository
than they are for blob-accessing operations, or even rev-list on a larger
repository. This may mean that a larger delta cache would help (though setting
core.deltaBaseCacheLimit by itself doesn't).

But we can also see that the space savings are not that great as the depth goes
higher. Saving 5-10% between 10 and 50 is probably worth the CPU tradeoff.
Saving 1% to go from 50 to 100, or another 0.5% to go from 100 to 250 is
probably not.
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      07e7dbf0
  3. 27 6月, 2016 1 次提交
  5. 05 11月, 2015 1 次提交
  7. 27 10月, 2015 1 次提交
  9. 26 9月, 2015 1 次提交
    • J
      convert trivial sprintf / strcpy calls to xsnprintf · 5096d490
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      We sometimes sprintf into fixed-size buffers when we know
that the buffer is large enough to fit the input (either
because it's a constant, or because it's numeric input that
is bounded in size). Likewise with strcpy of constant
strings.

However, these sites make it hard to audit sprintf and
strcpy calls for buffer overflows, as a reader has to
cross-reference the size of the array with the input. Let's
use xsnprintf instead, which communicates to a reader that
we don't expect this to overflow (and catches the mistake in
case we do).
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      5096d490
  11. 22 9月, 2015 1 次提交
    • N
      gc: save log from daemonized gc --auto and print it next time · 329e6e87
      由 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy 提交于 
      While commit 9f673f94 (gc: config option for running --auto in
background - 2014-02-08) helps reduce some complaints about 'gc
--auto' hogging the terminal, it creates another set of problems.

The latest in this set is, as the result of daemonizing, stderr is
closed and all warnings are lost. This warning at the end of cmd_gc()
is particularly important because it tells the user how to avoid "gc
--auto" running repeatedly. Because stderr is closed, the user does
not know, naturally they complain about 'gc --auto' wasting CPU.

Daemonized gc now saves stderr to $GIT_DIR/gc.log. Following gc --auto
will not run and gc.log printed out until the user removes gc.log.
Signed-off-by: NNguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      329e6e87
  13. 13 8月, 2015 2 次提交
  15. 21 7月, 2015 1 次提交
  17. 29 6月, 2015 1 次提交
  19. 25 6月, 2015 1 次提交
    • J
      introduce "preciousObjects" repository extension · 067fbd41
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      If this extension is used in a repository, then no
operations should run which may drop objects from the object
storage. This can be useful if you are sharing that storage
with other repositories whose refs you cannot see.

For instance, if you do:

  $ git clone -s parent child
  $ git -C parent config extensions.preciousObjects true
  $ git -C parent config core.repositoryformatversion 1

you now have additional safety when running git in the
parent repository. Prunes and repacks will bail with an
error, and `git gc` will skip those operations (it will
continue to pack refs and do other non-object operations).
Older versions of git, when run in the repository, will
fail on every operation.

Note that we do not set the preciousObjects extension by
default when doing a "clone -s", as doing so breaks
backwards compatibility. It is a decision the user should
make explicitly.
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      067fbd41
  21. 15 1月, 2015 1 次提交
  23. 02 12月, 2014 3 次提交
  25. 02 10月, 2014 1 次提交
  27. 08 8月, 2014 1 次提交
  29. 28 5月, 2014 1 次提交
  31. 01 4月, 2014 1 次提交
    • N
      gc --aggressive: make --depth configurable · 125f8146
      由 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy 提交于 
      When 1c192f34 (gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive - 2007-12-06)
made --depth=250 the default value, it didn't really explain the
reason behind, especially the pros and cons of --depth=250.

An old mail from Linus below explains it at length. Long story short,
--depth=250 is a disk saver and a performance killer. Not everybody
agrees on that aggressiveness. Let the user configure it.

    From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
    Subject: Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive
    Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:19:24 -0800 (PST)
    Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.9999.0712060803430.13796@woody.linux-foundation.org>
    Gmane-URL: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.devel/94637

    On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote:
    >
    > 7:41:25elapsed 86%CPU

    Heh. And this is why you want to do it exactly *once*, and then just
    export the end result for others ;)

    > -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 324094684 2007-12-06 07:26 pack-1d46...pack

    But yeah, especially if you allow longer delta chains, the end result can
    be much smaller (and what makes the one-time repack more expensive is the
    window size, not the delta chain - you could make the delta chains longer
    with no cost overhead at packing time)

    HOWEVER.

    The longer delta chains do make it potentially much more expensive to then
    use old history. So there's a trade-off. And quite frankly, a delta depth
    of 250 is likely going to cause overflows in the delta cache (which is
    only 256 entries in size *and* it's a hash, so it's going to start having
    hash conflicts long before hitting the 250 depth limit).

    So when I said "--depth=250 --window=250", I chose those numbers more as
    an example of extremely aggressive packing, and I'm not at all sure that
    the end result is necessarily wonderfully usable. It's going to save disk
    space (and network bandwidth - the delta's will be re-used for the network
    protocol too!), but there are definitely downsides too, and using long
    delta chains may simply not be worth it in practice.

    (And some of it might just want to have git tuning, ie if people think
    that long deltas are worth it, we could easily just expand on the delta
    hash, at the cost of some more memory used!)

    That said, the good news is that working with *new* history will not be
    affected negatively, and if you want to be _really_ sneaky, there are ways
    to say "create a pack that contains the history up to a version one year
    ago, and be very aggressive about those old versions that we still want to
    have around, but do a separate pack for newer stuff using less aggressive
    parameters"

    So this is something that can be tweaked, although we don't really have
    any really nice interfaces for stuff like that (ie the git delta cache
    size is hardcoded in the sources and cannot be set in the config file, and
    the "pack old history more aggressively" involves some manual scripting
    and knowing how "git pack-objects" works rather than any nice simple
    command line switch).

    So the thing to take away from this is:
     - git is certainly flexible as hell
     - .. but to get the full power you may need to tweak things
     - .. happily you really only need to have one person to do the tweaking,
       and the tweaked end results will be available to others that do not
       need to know/care.

    And whether the difference between 320MB and 500MB is worth any really
    involved tweaking (considering the potential downsides), I really don't
    know. Only testing will tell.

			    Linus
Signed-off-by: NNguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      125f8146
  33. 19 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  35. 11 2月, 2014 1 次提交
  37. 01 2月, 2014 1 次提交
  39. 03 1月, 2014 1 次提交
    • K
      gc: notice gc processes run by other users · ed7eda8b
      由 Kyle J. McKay 提交于 
      Since 64a99eb4 git gc refuses to run without the --force option if
another gc process on the same repository is already running.

However, if the repository is shared and user A runs git gc on the
repository and while that gc is still running user B runs git gc on
the same repository the gc process run by user A will not be noticed
and the gc run by user B will go ahead and run.

The problem is that the kill(pid, 0) test fails with an EPERM error
since user B is not allowed to signal processes owned by user A
(unless user B is root).

Update the test to recognize an EPERM error as meaning the process
exists and another gc should not be run (unless --force is given).
Signed-off-by: NKyle J. McKay <mackyle@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      ed7eda8b
  41. 11 12月, 2013 1 次提交
  43. 19 10月, 2013 1 次提交
    • J
      gc: remove gc.pid file at end of execution · 4c5baf02
      由 Jonathan Nieder 提交于 
      This file isn't really harmful, but isn't useful either, and can create
minor annoyance for the user:

* It's confusing, as the presence of a *.pid file often implies that a
  process is currently running. A user running "ls .git/" and finding
  this file may incorrectly guess that a "git gc" is currently running.

* Leaving this file means that a "git gc" in an already gc-ed repo is
  no-longer a no-op. A user running "git gc" in a set of repositories,
  and then synchronizing this set (e.g. rsync -av, unison, ...) will see
  all the gc.pid files as changed, which creates useless noise.

This patch unlinks the file after the garbage collection is done, so that
gc.pid is actually present only during execution.

Future versions of Git may want to use the information left in the gc.pid
file (e.g. for policies like "don't attempt to run a gc if one has
already been ran less than X hours ago"). If so, this patch can safely be
reverted. For now, let's not bother the users.
Explained-by: NMatthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: NJonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Improved-by: NNguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      4c5baf02
  45. 10 8月, 2013 1 次提交
  47. 06 8月, 2013 1 次提交
  49. 28 9月, 2012 1 次提交
  51. 21 8月, 2012 1 次提交
  53. 19 4月, 2012 1 次提交
    • J
      gc: use argv-array for sub-commands · 234587fc
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      git-gc executes many sub-commands. The argument list for
some of these is constant, but for others we add more
arguments at runtime. The latter is implemented by allocating
a constant extra number of NULLs, and either using a custom
append function, or just referencing unused slots by number.

As of commit 7e52f566, which added two new arguments, it is
possible to exceed the constant number of slots for "repack"
by running "git gc --aggressive", causing "git gc" to die.

This patch converts all of the static argv lists to use
argv-array. In addition to fixing the overflow caused by
7e52f566, it has a few advantages:

  1. We can drop the custom append function (which,
     incidentally, had an off-by-one error exacerbating the
     static limit).

  2. We can drop the ugly magic numbers used when adding
     arguments to "prune".

  3. Adding further arguments will be easier; you can just
     add new "push" calls without worrying about increasing
     any static limits.
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      234587fc
  55. 12 4月, 2012 1 次提交
    • J
      gc: do not explode objects which will be immediately pruned · 7e52f566
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      When we pack everything into one big pack with "git repack
-Ad", any unreferenced objects in to-be-deleted packs are
exploded into loose objects, with the intent that they will
be examined and possibly cleaned up by the next run of "git
prune".

Since the exploded objects will receive the mtime of the
pack from which they come, if the source pack is old, those
loose objects will end up pruned immediately. In that case,
it is much more efficient to skip the exploding step
entirely for these objects.

This patch teaches pack-objects to receive the expiration
information and avoid writing these objects out. It also
teaches "git gc" to pass the value of gc.pruneexpire to
repack (which in turn learns to pass it along to
pack-objects) so that this optimization happens
automatically during "git gc" and "git gc --auto".
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Acked-by: NNicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      7e52f566
  57. 08 11月, 2011 1 次提交
  59. 20 6月, 2011 1 次提交
  61. 10 3月, 2011 2 次提交
  63. 16 11月, 2010 2 次提交
  65. 23 10月, 2010 1 次提交
  67. 23 2月, 2010 1 次提交
    • L
      Move 'builtin-*' into a 'builtin/' subdirectory · 81b50f3c
      由 Linus Torvalds 提交于 
      This shrinks the top-level directory a bit, and makes it much more
pleasant to use auto-completion on the thing. Instead of

	[torvalds@nehalem git]$ em buil<tab>
	Display all 180 possibilities? (y or n)
	[torvalds@nehalem git]$ em builtin-sh
	builtin-shortlog.c     builtin-show-branch.c  builtin-show-ref.c
	builtin-shortlog.o     builtin-show-branch.o  builtin-show-ref.o
	[torvalds@nehalem git]$ em builtin-shor<tab>
	builtin-shortlog.c  builtin-shortlog.o
	[torvalds@nehalem git]$ em builtin-shortlog.c

you get

	[torvalds@nehalem git]$ em buil<tab>		[type]
	builtin/   builtin.h
	[torvalds@nehalem git]$ em builtin		[auto-completes to]
	[torvalds@nehalem git]$ em builtin/sh<tab>	[type]
	shortlog.c     shortlog.o     show-branch.c  show-branch.o  show-ref.c     show-ref.o
	[torvalds@nehalem git]$ em builtin/sho		[auto-completes to]
	[torvalds@nehalem git]$ em builtin/shor<tab>	[type]
	shortlog.c  shortlog.o
	[torvalds@nehalem git]$ em builtin/shortlog.c

which doesn't seem all that different, but not having that annoying
break in "Display all 180 possibilities?" is quite a relief.

NOTE! If you do this in a clean tree (no object files etc), or using an
editor that has auto-completion rules that ignores '*.o' files, you
won't see that annoying 'Display all 180 possibilities?' message - it
will just show the choices instead.  I think bash has some cut-off
around 100 choices or something.

So the reason I see this is that I'm using an odd editory, and thus
don't have the rules to cut down on auto-completion.  But you can
simulate that by using 'ls' instead, or something similar.
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      81b50f3c
  69. 04 12月, 2009 1 次提交