Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] split-index: smudge and add racily clean cache entries to split index

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 06 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 06 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 02:26:49PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 06 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>>> > 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 shows when the racy file was written,
>>> > which is not always in the failing test (but note that those lines are
>>> > in the 'after failure' fold, and your browser might unhelpfully fold
>>> > it up before you could take a good look).
>>>
>>> Thanks for working on this. When I package up git I run the tests
>>> under a few different modes, in the case of split index I've been
>>> doing:
>>>
>>>     GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=true GIT_SKIP_TESTS="t3903 t4015.77"
>>
>> Yeah, I noticed that you mentioned this in an unrelated thread the
>> other day, that's why I put you on Cc.  ... and that's why I pulled
>> this series from the backburner and cleaned it up for submission.
>> (Gah, most of these commits have an author date back in February...)
>>
>>> Since those were the ones I spotted failing under that mode, but
>>> I still had occasional other failures, I don't have a record of
>>> which, maybe some of these other tests you mention, maybe not.
>>
>> I poked around the Travis CI API, and managed to get the logs of all
>> build jobs that failed with 'GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=yes' but succeeded
>> without it.  Here is the list of failed test scripts, along with how
>> many times they failed:
>>
>>       1 t0027-auto-crlf.sh
>>       1 t0090-cache-tree.sh
>>       1 t3404-rebase-interactive.sh
>>       1 t5520-pull.sh
>>       1 t5573-pull-verify-signatures.sh
>>       1 t5608-clone-2gb.sh
>>       1 t7406-submodule-update.sh
>>       2 t2200-add-update.sh
>>       2 t4002-diff-basic.sh
>>       2 t5504-fetch-receive-strict.sh
>>       3 t0028-working-tree-encoding.sh
>>       4 t1000-read-tree-m-3way.sh
>>       6 t4015-diff-whitespace.sh
>>      10 t4024-diff-optimize-common.sh
>>      17 t3030-merge-recursive.sh
>>      17 t3402-rebase-merge.sh
>>      17 t3501-revert-cherry-pick.sh
>>      17 t6022-merge-rename.sh
>>      17 t6032-merge-large-rename.sh
>>      17 t6034-merge-rename-nocruft.sh
>>      17 t6042-merge-rename-corner-cases.sh
>>      17 t6043-merge-rename-directories.sh
>>      17 t6046-merge-skip-unneeded-updates.sh
>>      17 t7003-filter-branch.sh
>>      17 t7601-merge-pull-config.sh
>>      23 t3903-stash.sh
>>
>> I doubt that this racy split index problem is responsible for all
>> these failures; e.g. I looked at the failures of a few merge-related
>> test scripts, and these logs show that they tend to fail because of
>> memory corruption, i.e. with 'Aborted (core dumped)' or 'Segmentation
>> fault (core dumped)'.
>>
>>> To test how this this series improves things, I've been running
>>> this on a 56 core CentOS 7.5 machine:
>>>
>>>     while true; do GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=yes prove -j$(parallel --number-of-cores) t3903-stash.sh t4024-diff-optimize-common.sh t4015-diff-whitespace.sh t2200-add-update.sh t0090-cache-tree.sh && echo "OK $(date) $(git describe)" >>log2 || echo "FAIL $(date) $(git describe)" >>log2; done
>>>
>>> While, in another window to get some load on the machine (these seem to
>>> fail more under load):
>>>
>>>     while true; do prove -j$(parallel --number-of-cores) t[156789]*.sh; done
>>>
>>> The results with this series applied up to 4/5. I.e. without the actual
>>> fix:
>>>
>>>      92 OK v2.19.0-rc2-6-ged839bd155
>>>       8 FAIL v2.19.0-rc2-6-ged839bd155
>>>
>>> I.e. when running this 100 times, I got 8 failures. So 8%.
>>
>> Lucky you ;)
>>
>> I could only get t3903 to fail on me, but not the others.  That was
>> enough to eventually track down and fix the problem (fun! ;), and then
>> I looked at the logs of failed git/git Travis CI build jobs to see,
>> what other failures might have been caused by it.
>>
>>> With this patch applied:
>>>
>>>     389 OK v2.19.0-rc2-5-g05a5a13935
>>>      11 FAIL v2.19.0-rc2-5-g05a5a13935
>>>
>>> This time I ran the tests 400 times, and got 11 failures, i.e. a
>>> ~2.8% failure rate. I don't have a full account of what stuff
>>> failed (this was just scrolling past in my terminal), but most
>>> were:
>>>
>>>     t0090-cache-tree.sh          (Wstat: 256 Tests: 21 Failed: 3)
>>>       Failed tests:  10-12
>>>       Non-zero exit status: 1
>>>
>>> I.e. these tests:
>>>
>>>     ok 10 - commit --interactive gives cache-tree on partial commit
>>>     ok 11 - commit in child dir has cache-tree
>>>     ok 12 - reset --hard gives cache-tree
>>
>> But hey, 't0090 --verbose-log -x -i' just failed on me with the fix
>> applied while writing this email, yay!  In its logs I see the
>> following errors in all three tests you mention:
>>
>>   error: index uses ?½þA extension, which we do not understand
>>   fatal: index file corrupt
>>
>> Test 13 then starts with 'rm -f .git/index', and then all is well for
>> the remaining tests.
>>
>> There was a recent discussion about a similar error starting at:
>>
>>   https://public-inbox.org/git/20180901214157.hxlqmbz3fds7hsdl@ltop.local/
>>
>> and leading to a fix in 6c003d6ffb (reopen_tempfile(): truncate opened
>> file, 2018-09-04).  I certainly hope that not my fix is buggy, but
>> combined with 'GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=yes' it can occasionally trigger
>> the same error, and Peff's (Cc'd) fix will resolve it as well.
>>
>> Could you run your stress tests with Peff's fix merged with mine?
>> Apparetly your setup is much more capable of triggering these issues
>> than mine...
>
> I get the same sort of thing on t0090-cache-tree.sh with -v -x,
> i.e. failures due to:
>
>     error: index uses �)�? extension, which we do not understand
>     fatal: index file corrupt
>
> It turns out that my inability to reproduce that earlier was because I'd
> forgotten to set GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=yes in the environment for that
> while loop, so I wasn't testing the split index at all.
>
> I'm now running the tests in a lop with 6c003d6ffb cherry-picked on
> top. I'll report back when I have enough data to say if/how it helped.

I got 436 OK runs with that and 3 failures before I gave up and ctrl+c'd
it. And the 3 failures were:

    t3903-stash.sh               (Wstat: 256 Tests: 90 Failed: 1)
      Failed test:  55
      Non-zero exit status: 1

So it's back to failing on the same test as before your patches.

I did try merging in "pu" to get git-stash in C. There I had 2 failures
and 135 OK before I gave up. The C version failed tests 5 & 20, so there
may be some new regressions in the C version related to this.