From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Another approach to large transactions Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:21:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20150421232112.GA28316@peff.net> References: <1429226259-21622-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Michael Haggerty , "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 22 01:21:20 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YkhTk-0000nK-4r for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 01:21:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965193AbbDUXVQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:21:16 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:48373 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964880AbbDUXVP (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:21:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 11691 invoked by uid 102); 21 Apr 2015 23:21:15 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:21:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 5982 invoked by uid 107); 21 Apr 2015 23:21:41 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:21:41 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:21:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:31:11PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > When running the test locally, i.e. not in the test suite, but typing > the commands > myself into the shell, Git is fine with having just 5 file descriptors left. > The additional 4 required fds come from beign run inside the test suite. > > When strace-ing git, I cannot see any possible other fds which would require > having some left over space required. So I'd propose we'd just take a reasonable > number not too small for various test setups like 32 and then go with the > proposed patches. FWIW, we already use a magic value of "25 extra" in open_packed_git_1. I don't know if that means the number has been proven in practice, or if it is simply that nobody actually exercises the pack_max_fds code. I suspect it is the latter, especially since d131b7a (sha1_file.c: Don't retain open fds on small packs, 2011-03-02). -Peff