* Bad performance when using git log --parents (used by gitk) @ 2019-04-02 11:31 Björn Pettersson A 2019-04-02 13:27 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Björn Pettersson A @ 2019-04-02 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git Hi! The LLVM project is moving from SVN to git, creating a single repo on github for several LLVM sub-projects. In the past we have had one git repo mirror for each sub-project (mirroring the SVN projects). Unfortunately, I've seen some performance problems with git (or rather gitk) when starting to use the new llvm-project git repo. It seems like gitk is using "git log --no-color -z --pretty=raw --show-notes --parents --boundary HEAD -- <file>" when loading the history. So it seems to be the performance of "git log --parents . -- <file>" that is causing the performance problem afaict. Example: Run "git log --parents" for an old file (bswap.ll), and a brand new file (dummy). First we try it using the new "llvm-project" repository. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bash-4.1$ git clone https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git && cd llvm-project Cloning into 'llvm-project'... remote: Enumerating objects: 130, done. remote: Counting objects: 100% (130/130), done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (98/98), done. remote: Total 3361980 (delta 39), reused 58 (delta 26), pack-reused 3361850 Receiving objects: 100% (3361980/3361980), 605.50 MiB | 15.63 MiB/s, done. Resolving deltas: 100% (2755544/2755544), done. Checking out files: 100% (82618/82618), done. bash-4.1$ /usr/bin/time git log --parents -- llvm/test/CodeGen/Generic/bswap.ll >> /dev/null 190.63user 0.43system 3:11.01elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 702756maxresident)k 232inputs+0outputs (2major+177913minor)pagefaults 0swaps bash-4.1$ touch dummy bash-4.1$ git add dummy bash-4.1$ git commit -m "test" [master ce43ac2e487] test 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 dummy bash-4.1$ /usr/bin/time git log --parents -- dummy >> /dev/null 205.54user 0.37system 3:25.83elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 644576maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+163134minor)pagefaults 0swaps -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now do the same for the old "llvm" repository. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bash-4.1$ git clone https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm.git llvm && cd llvm Cloning into 'llvm'... remote: Enumerating objects: 84, done. remote: Counting objects: 100% (84/84), done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (61/61), done. remote: Total 1673859 (delta 25), reused 35 (delta 23), pack-reused 1673775 Receiving objects: 100% (1673859/1673859), 373.08 MiB | 12.72 MiB/s, done. Resolving deltas: 100% (1369306/1369306), done. Checking out files: 100% (36477/36477), done. bash-4.1$ /usr/bin/time git log --parents -- test/CodeGen/Generic/bswap.ll >> /dev/null 4.89user 0.27system 0:05.19elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 468072maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+120244minor)pagefaults 0swaps bash-4.1$ touch dummy bash-4.1$ git add dummy bash-4.1$ git commit -m "test" [master 1db81b43a30] test 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 dummy bash-4.1$ /usr/bin/time git log --parents -- dummy >> /dev/null 4.05user 0.24system 0:04.32elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 437920maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+112503minor)pagefaults 0swaps -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So for bswap.ll it takes about 190/5 = 38 times longer time to run "git log --parents", and for the new dummy file it takes 205/4 = 51 times longer time, when using the new repo. The size of the llvm-project repo is a little bit larger (since we have merged several project, so the number of commits increases from ~180000 to ~310000, but I doubt that such an increase should affect the time for git log --parents by a factor of 50. From what I understand --parents can take some time, but I see huge degradation when using our new repo compared to the old. Not sure if just the repo is too large (or poorly packed?), or if this is a git problem. Any help understanding this is welcome. I used git version 2.20.0 in the tests above. PS. I also think that the problem can be seen for files with longer history, for example CODE_OWNERS.txt (llvm/CODE_OWNERS.txt in llvm-project). But then the git log command starts printing commits much sooner. So with gitk I actually get to see some history just after a few seconds also when using llvm-project (even though it takes some time to load the full history). For the files with a very short history (like the dummy file example) the printout won't happen until at the end (after 200 seconds) so git log (and gitk) just appears to be stuck. Is git log caching the result somehow, not printing anything until it has more than one commit to print? Regards, Björn Pettersson A Ericsson Datalinjen 4 (Hus K) 58330, Linköping Sweden ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Bad performance when using git log --parents (used by gitk) 2019-04-02 11:31 Bad performance when using git log --parents (used by gitk) Björn Pettersson A @ 2019-04-02 13:27 ` Jeff King 2019-04-02 15:07 ` Björn Pettersson A 2019-04-04 1:41 ` [PATCH] revision: use a prio_queue to hold rewritten parents Jeff King 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2019-04-02 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Björn Pettersson A; +Cc: git On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:31:59AM +0000, Björn Pettersson A wrote: > Example: > > Run "git log --parents" for an old file (bswap.ll), and a brand new file (dummy). Interesting case. I was able to reproduce it here pretty easily, and I have a start on a solution below. > So for bswap.ll it takes about 190/5 = 38 times longer time to run "git log --parents", > and for the new dummy file it takes 205/4 = 51 times longer time, when using the new repo. > > The size of the llvm-project repo is a little bit larger (since we have merged > several project, so the number of commits increases from ~180000 to ~310000, but I doubt > that such an increase should affect the time for git log --parents by a factor of 50. Yeah, I'd expect it to take about twice as long (having to sort through about twice as much tree data), which is what I see without --parents. > From what I understand --parents can take some time, but I see huge > degradation when using our new repo compared to the old. I wouldn't normally expect --parents to take a long time. Most of the time for your command should be going to opening up trees to see if they touched the file in question. I don't think there's anything wrong with the new repo compared to the old. They just happen to have different access patterns. Poking at your case in perf and gdb, it looks like a resurgence of our old friend, the accidentally-quadratic commit_list_insert_by_date. The backtrace where we spend most of our time looks like this: #0 commit_list_insert_by_date_cached (...) at revision.c:919 #1 0x000055555572c860 in process_parents (...) at revision.c:1009 #2 0x0000555555733cc6 in rewrite_one (...) at revision.c:3351 #3 0x0000555555733d98 in rewrite_parents (...) at revision.c:3371 #4 0x0000555555734906 in simplify_commit (...) at revision.c:3625 #5 0x0000555555734c17 in get_revision_1 (...) at revision.c:3691 And that explains your observation that you don't see any output. Normally Git tries to stream the commits as it finds them, but it literally spends all of its time trying to find the next viable parent of that first commit before it can print it. And there are a ton of such commits in your examples, because they each are touched by only one commit relatively near the tip of our traversal (so basically we end up going through the entire history looking for another parent before deciding there isn't one). The root of the issue is that we keep the queue of commits to be shown in a linked list, and then insert new ones by date. Naively, this is quadratic in the number of commits. We tried to deal with that long ago in fce87ae538 (Fix quadratic performance in rewrite_one., 2008-07-12). That commit caches the oldest item we've added, which makes a good heuristic starting point for inserting the next one, as time tends to go backwards as we traverse. But that heuristic seems to behave poorly for your case, presumably because you have merges which jump around a lot in time (I'm guessing there, based on the fact that you said you merged several projects together). If I tweak the heuristic to just always cache the last-added item, rather than the oldest, like so: diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c index eb8e51bc63..492c4247c4 100644 --- a/revision.c +++ b/revision.c @@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ static void commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(struct commit *p, struct commit_li else new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, head); - if (cache && (!*cache || p->date < (*cache)->item->date)) + if (cache) *cache = new_entry; } I get much better performance: $ time git log --parents -- llvm/test/CodeGen/Generic/bswap.ll >/dev/null real 0m5.674s user 0m5.546s sys 0m0.128s But there are two issues, still. One is that I'm not sure if that might be hurting other cases. It works for your case because hitting one old commit doesn't permanently adjust our cache into a useless position. And two, 5.6s is still not as cheap as it is without --parents: $ time git log -- llvm/test/CodeGen/Generic/bswap.ll >/dev/null real 0m4.200s user 0m4.043s sys 0m0.156s I think the right solution is scrap this heuristic hackery and use a real priority queue (which we didn't have readily available back in 2008). The patch below does that, and gives me similar performance to the non-parents case: $ time git log --parents -- llvm/test/CodeGen/Generic/bswap.ll >/dev/null real 0m4.356s user 0m4.208s sys 0m0.148s It's a little hacky because other parts of the code use lists, so: - the underlying process_parents() handles either case, since there's another caller which wants its results in a list - we can't convert &revs->commits to prio_queue, because that would have huge fallouts all over the code base (and in particular, it sometimes does want to do in-order traversal, so something like a skip-list would actually be a better data structure). So we end up doing our local computation using the queue, and then dumping the results back into the list. I don't _think_ anybody needs to see those commits in &revs->commits while we're walking the parents. As an aside, I notice that the parent-rewriting always uses commit timestamps for ordering (even before my patch). I suspect this may interact in a funny way with --topo-order or --date-order, but any such bugs would be the same before or after this patch. --- diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c index eb8e51bc63..96bac876a6 100644 --- a/revision.c +++ b/revision.c @@ -911,26 +911,11 @@ static void try_to_simplify_commit(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit) commit->object.flags |= TREESAME; } -static void commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(struct commit *p, struct commit_list **head, - struct commit_list *cached_base, struct commit_list **cache) -{ - struct commit_list *new_entry; - - if (cached_base && p->date < cached_base->item->date) - new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, &cached_base->next); - else - new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, head); - - if (cache && (!*cache || p->date < (*cache)->item->date)) - *cache = new_entry; -} - static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, - struct commit_list **list, struct commit_list **cache_ptr) + struct commit_list **list, struct prio_queue *queue) { struct commit_list *parent = commit->parents; unsigned left_flag; - struct commit_list *cached_base = cache_ptr ? *cache_ptr : NULL; if (commit->object.flags & ADDED) return 0; @@ -966,7 +951,9 @@ static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, continue; p->object.flags |= SEEN; if (list) - commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(p, list, cached_base, cache_ptr); + commit_list_insert_by_date(p, list); + if (queue) + prio_queue_put(queue, p); } return 0; } @@ -1006,7 +993,9 @@ static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, if (!(p->object.flags & SEEN)) { p->object.flags |= SEEN; if (list) - commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(p, list, cached_base, cache_ptr); + commit_list_insert_by_date(p, list); + if (queue) + prio_queue_put(queue, p); } if (revs->first_parent_only) break; @@ -3341,14 +3330,14 @@ int prepare_revision_walk(struct rev_info *revs) return 0; } -static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit **pp) +static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one_1(struct rev_info *revs, + struct commit **pp, + struct prio_queue *queue) { - struct commit_list *cache = NULL; - for (;;) { struct commit *p = *pp; if (!revs->limited) - if (process_parents(revs, p, &revs->commits, &cache) < 0) + if (process_parents(revs, p, NULL, queue) < 0) return rewrite_one_error; if (p->object.flags & UNINTERESTING) return rewrite_one_ok; @@ -3362,6 +3351,31 @@ static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit **pp } } +static void merge_queue_into_list(struct prio_queue *q, struct commit_list **list) +{ + while (q->nr) { + struct commit *item = prio_queue_peek(q); + struct commit_list *p = *list; + + if (p && p->item->date > item->date) + list = &p->next; + else { + p = commit_list_insert(item, list); + list = &p->next; /* skip newly added item */ + prio_queue_get(q); /* pop item */ + } + } +} + +static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit **pp) +{ + struct prio_queue queue = { compare_commits_by_commit_date }; + enum rewrite_result ret = rewrite_one_1(revs, pp, &queue); + merge_queue_into_list(&queue, &revs->commits); + clear_prio_queue(&queue); + return ret; +} + int rewrite_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, rewrite_parent_fn_t rewrite_parent) { ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* RE: Bad performance when using git log --parents (used by gitk) 2019-04-02 13:27 ` Jeff King @ 2019-04-02 15:07 ` Björn Pettersson A 2019-04-02 18:20 ` Johannes Schindelin 2019-04-04 1:41 ` [PATCH] revision: use a prio_queue to hold rewritten parents Jeff King 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Björn Pettersson A @ 2019-04-02 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King; +Cc: git Hello Jeff! Thanks for a quick reply (with lots of details). Hitting some quadratic complexity algorithm explains why the "degradation" is so huge. And if I understand it correctly we are more or less "unlucky" to hit such access patterns more often in the new repo. Anyway, nice to see that you already have some ideas regarding how to improve this. Regards, Björn > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> > Sent: den 2 april 2019 15:28 > To: Björn Pettersson A <bjorn.a.pettersson@ericsson.com> > Cc: git@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Bad performance when using git log --parents (used by gitk) > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:31:59AM +0000, Björn Pettersson A wrote: > > > Example: > > > > Run "git log --parents" for an old file (bswap.ll), and a brand new file > (dummy). > > Interesting case. I was able to reproduce it here pretty easily, and I > have a start on a solution below. > > > So for bswap.ll it takes about 190/5 = 38 times longer time to run "git > log --parents", > > and for the new dummy file it takes 205/4 = 51 times longer time, when > using the new repo. > > > > The size of the llvm-project repo is a little bit larger (since we have > merged > > several project, so the number of commits increases from ~180000 to > ~310000, but I doubt > > that such an increase should affect the time for git log --parents by a > factor of 50. > > Yeah, I'd expect it to take about twice as long (having to sort through > about twice as much tree data), which is what I see without --parents. > > > From what I understand --parents can take some time, but I see huge > > degradation when using our new repo compared to the old. > > I wouldn't normally expect --parents to take a long time. Most of the > time for your command should be going to opening up trees to see if they > touched the file in question. > > I don't think there's anything wrong with the new repo compared to the > old. They just happen to have different access patterns. > > Poking at your case in perf and gdb, it looks like a resurgence of our > old friend, the accidentally-quadratic commit_list_insert_by_date. The > backtrace where we spend most of our time looks like this: > > #0 commit_list_insert_by_date_cached (...) at revision.c:919 > #1 0x000055555572c860 in process_parents (...) at revision.c:1009 > #2 0x0000555555733cc6 in rewrite_one (...) at revision.c:3351 > #3 0x0000555555733d98 in rewrite_parents (...) at revision.c:3371 > #4 0x0000555555734906 in simplify_commit (...) at revision.c:3625 > #5 0x0000555555734c17 in get_revision_1 (...) at revision.c:3691 > > And that explains your observation that you don't see any output. > Normally Git tries to stream the commits as it finds them, but it > literally spends all of its time trying to find the next viable parent > of that first commit before it can print it. And there are a ton of such > commits in your examples, because they each are touched by only one > commit relatively near the tip of our traversal (so basically we end up > going through the entire history looking for another parent before > deciding there isn't one). > > The root of the issue is that we keep the queue of commits to be shown > in a linked list, and then insert new ones by date. Naively, this is > quadratic in the number of commits. We tried to deal with that long ago > in fce87ae538 (Fix quadratic performance in rewrite_one., 2008-07-12). > > That commit caches the oldest item we've added, which makes a good > heuristic starting point for inserting the next one, as time tends to go > backwards as we traverse. > > But that heuristic seems to behave poorly for your case, presumably > because you have merges which jump around a lot in time (I'm guessing > there, based on the fact that you said you merged several projects > together). > > If I tweak the heuristic to just always cache the last-added item, > rather than the oldest, like so: > > diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c > index eb8e51bc63..492c4247c4 100644 > --- a/revision.c > +++ b/revision.c > @@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ static void commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(struct > commit *p, struct commit_li > else > new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, head); > > - if (cache && (!*cache || p->date < (*cache)->item->date)) > + if (cache) > *cache = new_entry; > } > > > I get much better performance: > > $ time git log --parents -- llvm/test/CodeGen/Generic/bswap.ll >/dev/null > real 0m5.674s > user 0m5.546s > sys 0m0.128s > > But there are two issues, still. One is that I'm not sure if that might > be hurting other cases. It works for your case because hitting one old > commit doesn't permanently adjust our cache into a useless position. > > And two, 5.6s is still not as cheap as it is without --parents: > > $ time git log -- llvm/test/CodeGen/Generic/bswap.ll >/dev/null > real 0m4.200s > user 0m4.043s > sys 0m0.156s > > I think the right solution is scrap this heuristic hackery and use a > real priority queue (which we didn't have readily available back in > 2008). The patch below does that, and gives me similar performance to > the non-parents case: > > $ time git log --parents -- llvm/test/CodeGen/Generic/bswap.ll >/dev/null > real 0m4.356s > user 0m4.208s > sys 0m0.148s > > It's a little hacky because other parts of the code use lists, so: > > - the underlying process_parents() handles either case, since there's > another caller which wants its results in a list > > - we can't convert &revs->commits to prio_queue, because that would > have huge fallouts all over the code base (and in particular, it > sometimes does want to do in-order traversal, so something like a > skip-list would actually be a better data structure). So we end up > doing our local computation using the queue, and then dumping the > results back into the list. I don't _think_ anybody needs to see > those commits in &revs->commits while we're walking the parents. > > As an aside, I notice that the parent-rewriting always uses commit > timestamps for ordering (even before my patch). I suspect this may > interact in a funny way with --topo-order or --date-order, but any such > bugs would be the same before or after this patch. > > --- > diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c > index eb8e51bc63..96bac876a6 100644 > --- a/revision.c > +++ b/revision.c > @@ -911,26 +911,11 @@ static void try_to_simplify_commit(struct rev_info > *revs, struct commit *commit) > commit->object.flags |= TREESAME; > } > > -static void commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(struct commit *p, struct > commit_list **head, > - struct commit_list *cached_base, struct commit_list **cache) > -{ > - struct commit_list *new_entry; > - > - if (cached_base && p->date < cached_base->item->date) > - new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, &cached_base->next); > - else > - new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, head); > - > - if (cache && (!*cache || p->date < (*cache)->item->date)) > - *cache = new_entry; > -} > - > static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, > - struct commit_list **list, struct commit_list > **cache_ptr) > + struct commit_list **list, struct prio_queue *queue) > { > struct commit_list *parent = commit->parents; > unsigned left_flag; > - struct commit_list *cached_base = cache_ptr ? *cache_ptr : NULL; > > if (commit->object.flags & ADDED) > return 0; > @@ -966,7 +951,9 @@ static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, > struct commit *commit, > continue; > p->object.flags |= SEEN; > if (list) > - commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(p, list, > cached_base, cache_ptr); > + commit_list_insert_by_date(p, list); > + if (queue) > + prio_queue_put(queue, p); > } > return 0; > } > @@ -1006,7 +993,9 @@ static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, > struct commit *commit, > if (!(p->object.flags & SEEN)) { > p->object.flags |= SEEN; > if (list) > - commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(p, list, > cached_base, cache_ptr); > + commit_list_insert_by_date(p, list); > + if (queue) > + prio_queue_put(queue, p); > } > if (revs->first_parent_only) > break; > @@ -3341,14 +3330,14 @@ int prepare_revision_walk(struct rev_info *revs) > return 0; > } > > -static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, struct > commit **pp) > +static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one_1(struct rev_info *revs, > + struct commit **pp, > + struct prio_queue *queue) > { > - struct commit_list *cache = NULL; > - > for (;;) { > struct commit *p = *pp; > if (!revs->limited) > - if (process_parents(revs, p, &revs->commits, &cache) < 0) > + if (process_parents(revs, p, NULL, queue) < 0) > return rewrite_one_error; > if (p->object.flags & UNINTERESTING) > return rewrite_one_ok; > @@ -3362,6 +3351,31 @@ static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct > rev_info *revs, struct commit **pp > } > } > > +static void merge_queue_into_list(struct prio_queue *q, struct commit_list > **list) > +{ > + while (q->nr) { > + struct commit *item = prio_queue_peek(q); > + struct commit_list *p = *list; > + > + if (p && p->item->date > item->date) > + list = &p->next; > + else { > + p = commit_list_insert(item, list); > + list = &p->next; /* skip newly added item */ > + prio_queue_get(q); /* pop item */ > + } > + } > +} > + > +static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, struct > commit **pp) > +{ > + struct prio_queue queue = { compare_commits_by_commit_date }; > + enum rewrite_result ret = rewrite_one_1(revs, pp, &queue); > + merge_queue_into_list(&queue, &revs->commits); > + clear_prio_queue(&queue); > + return ret; > +} > + > int rewrite_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, > rewrite_parent_fn_t rewrite_parent) > { ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* RE: Bad performance when using git log --parents (used by gitk) 2019-04-02 15:07 ` Björn Pettersson A @ 2019-04-02 18:20 ` Johannes Schindelin 2019-04-04 1:36 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2019-04-02 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Björn Pettersson A; +Cc: Jeff King, git [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 810 bytes --] Hi Björn, On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Björn Pettersson A wrote: > Thanks for a quick reply (with lots of details). > > Hitting some quadratic complexity algorithm explains why the "degradation" > is so huge. And if I understand it correctly we are more or less "unlucky" > to hit such access patterns more often in the new repo. > > Anyway, nice to see that you already have some ideas regarding how to > improve this. In the meantime, maybe the commit graph feature can help you? git config --global core.commitGraph true git config --global gc.writeCommitGraph true git commit-graph write --reachable The idea being that the commit graph extracts a lot of information pre-emptively and makes the lookup of those bits faster than unpacking the commits all the time. Ciao, Johannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Bad performance when using git log --parents (used by gitk) 2019-04-02 18:20 ` Johannes Schindelin @ 2019-04-04 1:36 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2019-04-04 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: Björn Pettersson A, git On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 08:20:05PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Hitting some quadratic complexity algorithm explains why the "degradation" > > is so huge. And if I understand it correctly we are more or less "unlucky" > > to hit such access patterns more often in the new repo. > > > > Anyway, nice to see that you already have some ideas regarding how to > > improve this. > > In the meantime, maybe the commit graph feature can help you? > > git config --global core.commitGraph true > git config --global gc.writeCommitGraph true > git commit-graph write --reachable > > The idea being that the commit graph extracts a lot of information > pre-emptively and makes the lookup of those bits faster than unpacking the > commits all the time. I'd definitely encourage Björn (or anybody with a biggish repo) to check out the commit-graph work, because it's really cool. But it won't help much here, because the quadratic loop is just on linked-list insertion. We're literally spending all of our time chasing pointers in memory. -Peff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] revision: use a prio_queue to hold rewritten parents 2019-04-02 13:27 ` Jeff King 2019-04-02 15:07 ` Björn Pettersson A @ 2019-04-04 1:41 ` Jeff King 2019-04-04 1:54 ` Jeff King 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2019-04-04 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Björn Pettersson A; +Cc: git On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 09:27:56AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:31:59AM +0000, Björn Pettersson A wrote: > > > Example: > > > > Run "git log --parents" for an old file (bswap.ll), and a brand new file (dummy). > > Interesting case. I was able to reproduce it here pretty easily, and I > have a start on a solution below. After a bit of pondering and some experimentation, I think this is the right direction. Here's that patch again (with a few minor tweaks), and an excessively long commit message which I hope explains everything. Thanks for a very interesting case (and with an easy reproduction recipe!). -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] revision: use a prio_queue to hold rewritten parents This patch fixes a quadratic list insertion in rewrite_one() when pathspec limiting is combined with --parents. What happens is something like this: 1. We see that some commit X touches the path, so we try to rewrite its parents. 2. rewrite_one() loops forever, rewriting parents, until it finds a relevant parent (or hits the root and decides there are none). The heavy lifting is done by process_parent(), which uses try_to_simplify_commit() to drop parents. 3. process_parent() puts any intermediate parents into the &revs->commits list, inserting by commit date as usual. So if commit X is recent, and then there's a large chunk of history that doesn't touch the path, we may add a lot of commits to &revs->commits. And insertion by commit date is O(n) in the worst case, making the whole thing quadratic. We tried to deal with this long ago in fce87ae538 (Fix quadratic performance in rewrite_one., 2008-07-12). In that scheme, we cache the oldest commit in the list; if the new commit to be added is older, we can start our linear traversal there. This often works well in practice because parents are older than their descendants, and thus we tend to add older and older commits as we traverse. But this isn't guaranteed, and in fact there's a simple case where it is not: merges. Imagine we look at the first parent of a merge and see a very old commit (let's say 3 years old). And on the second parent, as we go back 3 years in history, we might have many commits. That one first-parent commit has polluted our oldest-commit cache; it will remain the oldest while we traverse a huge chunk of history, during which we have to fall back to the slow, linear method of adding to the list. Naively, one might imagine that instead of caching the oldest commit, we'd start at the last-added one. But that just makes some cases faster while making others slower (and indeed, while it made a real-world test case much faster, it does quite poorly in the perf test include here). Fundamentally, these are just heuristics; our worst case is still quadratic, and some cases will approach that. Instead, let's use a data structure with better worst-case performance. Swapping out revs->commits for something else would have repercussions all over the code base, but we can take advantage of one fact: for the rewrite_one() case, nobody actually needs to see those commits in revs->commits until we've finished generating the whole list. That leaves us with two obvious options: 1. We can generate the list _unordered_, which should be O(n), and then sort it afterwards, which would be O(n log n) total. This is "sort-after" below. 2. We can insert the commits into a separate data structure, like a priority queue. This is "prio-queue" below. I expected that sort-after would be the fastest (since it saves us the extra step of copying the items into the linked list), but surprisingly the prio-queue seems to be a bit faster. Here are timings for the new p0001.6 for all three techniques across a few repositories, as compared to master: master cache-last sort-after prio-queue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GIT_PERF_REPO=git.git 0.52(0.50+0.02) 0.53(0.51+0.02) +1.9% 0.37(0.33+0.03) -28.8% 0.37(0.32+0.04) -28.8% GIT_PERF_REPO=linux.git 20.81(20.74+0.07) 20.31(20.24+0.07) -2.4% 0.94(0.86+0.07) -95.5% 0.91(0.82+0.09) -95.6% GIT_PERF_REPO=llvm-project.git 83.67(83.57+0.09) 4.23(4.15+0.08) -94.9% 3.21(3.15+0.06) -96.2% 2.98(2.91+0.07) -96.4% A few items to note: - the cache-list tweak does improve the bad case for llvm-project.git that started my digging into this problem. But it performs terribly on linux.git, barely helping at all. - the sort-after and prio-queue techniques work well. They approach the timing for running without --parents at all, which is what you'd expect (see below for more data). - prio-queue just barely outperforms sort-after. As I said, I'm not really sure why this is the case, but it is. You can see it even more prominently in this real-world case on llvm-project.git: git rev-list --parents 07ef786652e7 -- llvm/test/CodeGen/Generic/bswap.ll where prio-queue routinely outperforms sort-after by about 7%. One guess is that the prio-queue may just be more efficient because it uses a compact array. There are three new perf tests: - "rev-list --parents" gives us a baseline for running with --parents. This isn't sped up meaningfully here, because the bad case is triggered only with simplification. But it's good to make sure we don't screw it up (now, or in the future). - "rev-list -- dummy" gives us a baseline for just traversing with pathspec limiting. This gives a lower bound for the next test (and it's also a good thing for us to be checking in general for regressions, since we don't seem to have any existing tests). - "rev-list --parents -- dummy" shows off the problem (and our fix) Here are the timings for those three on llvm-project.git, before and after the fix: Test master prio-queue ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0001.3: rev-list --parents 2.24(2.12+0.12) 2.22(2.11+0.11) -0.9% 0001.5: rev-list -- dummy 2.89(2.82+0.07) 2.92(2.89+0.03) +1.0% 0001.6: rev-list --parents -- dummy 83.67(83.57+0.09) 2.98(2.91+0.07) -96.4% Changes in the first two are basically noise, and you can see we approach our lower bound in the final one. Note that we can't fully get rid of the list argument from process_parents(). Other callers do have lists, and it would be hard to convert them. They also don't seem to have this problem (probably because they actually remove items from the list as they loop, meaning it doesn't grow so large in the first place). So this basically just drops the "cache_ptr" parameter (which was used only by the one caller we're fixing here) and replaces it with a prio_queue. Callers are free to use either data structure, depending on what they're prepared to handle. Reported-by: Björn Pettersson A <bjorn.a.pettersson@ericsson.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> --- revision.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh | 18 +++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c index eb8e51bc63..8e500441d9 100644 --- a/revision.c +++ b/revision.c @@ -911,26 +911,11 @@ static void try_to_simplify_commit(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit) commit->object.flags |= TREESAME; } -static void commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(struct commit *p, struct commit_list **head, - struct commit_list *cached_base, struct commit_list **cache) -{ - struct commit_list *new_entry; - - if (cached_base && p->date < cached_base->item->date) - new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, &cached_base->next); - else - new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, head); - - if (cache && (!*cache || p->date < (*cache)->item->date)) - *cache = new_entry; -} - static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, - struct commit_list **list, struct commit_list **cache_ptr) + struct commit_list **list, struct prio_queue *queue) { struct commit_list *parent = commit->parents; unsigned left_flag; - struct commit_list *cached_base = cache_ptr ? *cache_ptr : NULL; if (commit->object.flags & ADDED) return 0; @@ -966,7 +951,9 @@ static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, continue; p->object.flags |= SEEN; if (list) - commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(p, list, cached_base, cache_ptr); + commit_list_insert_by_date(p, list); + if (queue) + prio_queue_put(queue, p); } return 0; } @@ -1006,7 +993,9 @@ static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, if (!(p->object.flags & SEEN)) { p->object.flags |= SEEN; if (list) - commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(p, list, cached_base, cache_ptr); + commit_list_insert_by_date(p, list); + if (queue) + prio_queue_put(queue, p); } if (revs->first_parent_only) break; @@ -3341,14 +3330,14 @@ int prepare_revision_walk(struct rev_info *revs) return 0; } -static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit **pp) +static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one_1(struct rev_info *revs, + struct commit **pp, + struct prio_queue *queue) { - struct commit_list *cache = NULL; - for (;;) { struct commit *p = *pp; if (!revs->limited) - if (process_parents(revs, p, &revs->commits, &cache) < 0) + if (process_parents(revs, p, NULL, queue) < 0) return rewrite_one_error; if (p->object.flags & UNINTERESTING) return rewrite_one_ok; @@ -3362,6 +3351,31 @@ static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit **pp } } +static void merge_queue_into_list(struct prio_queue *q, struct commit_list **list) +{ + while (q->nr) { + struct commit *item = prio_queue_peek(q); + struct commit_list *p = *list; + + if (p && p->item->date >= item->date) + list = &p->next; + else { + p = commit_list_insert(item, list); + list = &p->next; /* skip newly added item */ + prio_queue_get(q); /* pop item */ + } + } +} + +static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit **pp) +{ + struct prio_queue queue = { compare_commits_by_commit_date }; + enum rewrite_result ret = rewrite_one_1(revs, pp, &queue); + merge_queue_into_list(&queue, &revs->commits); + clear_prio_queue(&queue); + return ret; +} + int rewrite_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, rewrite_parent_fn_t rewrite_parent) { diff --git a/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh b/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh index ebf172401b..3042a85666 100755 --- a/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh +++ b/t/perf/p0001-rev-list.sh @@ -14,6 +14,24 @@ test_perf 'rev-list --all --objects' ' git rev-list --all --objects >/dev/null ' +test_perf 'rev-list --parents' ' + git rev-list --parents HEAD >/dev/null +' + +test_expect_success 'create dummy file' ' + echo unlikely-to-already-be-there >dummy && + git add dummy && + git commit -m dummy +' + +test_perf 'rev-list -- dummy' ' + git rev-list HEAD -- dummy +' + +test_perf 'rev-list --parents -- dummy' ' + git rev-list --parents HEAD -- dummy +' + test_expect_success 'create new unreferenced commit' ' commit=$(git commit-tree HEAD^{tree} -p HEAD) && test_export commit -- 2.21.0.714.gd1be1d035b ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] revision: use a prio_queue to hold rewritten parents 2019-04-04 1:41 ` [PATCH] revision: use a prio_queue to hold rewritten parents Jeff King @ 2019-04-04 1:54 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2019-04-04 1:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Björn Pettersson A; +Cc: git On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 09:41:09PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > A few items to note: > > - the cache-list tweak does improve the bad case for llvm-project.git > that started my digging into this problem. But it performs terribly > on linux.git, barely helping at all. Oops, that should be cache-last of course. Just for completeness, here's the patch for that (which I also showed earlier in the thread): diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c index eb8e51bc63..492c4247c4 100644 --- a/revision.c +++ b/revision.c @@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ static void commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(struct commit *p, struct commit_li else new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, head); - if (cache && (!*cache || p->date < (*cache)->item->date)) + if (cache) *cache = new_entry; } > - prio-queue just barely outperforms sort-after. As I said, I'm not > really sure why this is the case, but it is. You can see it even > more prominently in this real-world case on llvm-project.git: > > git rev-list --parents 07ef786652e7 -- llvm/test/CodeGen/Generic/bswap.ll > > where prio-queue routinely outperforms sort-after by about 7%. One > guess is that the prio-queue may just be more efficient because it > uses a compact array. And much more interesting, here's the patch for sort-after. It's possible I simply screwed something up, and that's why prio-queue is faster. Two things to note: - it sorts the new list, and then merges it in O(n) into the existing list. This should have identical behavior to the existing insert_by_date if the existing list is not sorted in the same way. I'm not sure if that's possible or not (e.g., due to topo order or similar). If it's not, then it might be slightly faster to just insert into the final list in the first place, and then sort the whole thing as one unit. - curiously, this seems to racily fail t6001. That script creates some new commits without using test_tick, so it may end up with several commits with the same timestamp. When this happens, it fails because two of the commits get reordered in the log output. That points to the sort not being stable. But generally mergesort _is_ stable (and I'm relying on the existing sort here). And I think my merge operation is stable, too. If anything, I'd have thought I'd screw something up with the prio-queue merge, but that one does behave reliably (heap queues are not inherently stable, but our prio_queue uses a counter to address that). So I dunno. Again, it's possible I simply screwed something up. --- diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c index eb8e51bc63..a8cbe80636 100644 --- a/revision.c +++ b/revision.c @@ -911,26 +911,11 @@ static void try_to_simplify_commit(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit) commit->object.flags |= TREESAME; } -static void commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(struct commit *p, struct commit_list **head, - struct commit_list *cached_base, struct commit_list **cache) -{ - struct commit_list *new_entry; - - if (cached_base && p->date < cached_base->item->date) - new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, &cached_base->next); - else - new_entry = commit_list_insert_by_date(p, head); - - if (cache && (!*cache || p->date < (*cache)->item->date)) - *cache = new_entry; -} - static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, - struct commit_list **list, struct commit_list **cache_ptr) + struct commit_list **list, int insert_by_date) { struct commit_list *parent = commit->parents; unsigned left_flag; - struct commit_list *cached_base = cache_ptr ? *cache_ptr : NULL; if (commit->object.flags & ADDED) return 0; @@ -965,8 +950,13 @@ static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, if (p->object.flags & SEEN) continue; p->object.flags |= SEEN; - if (list) - commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(p, list, cached_base, cache_ptr); + if (list) { + if (insert_by_date) + commit_list_insert_by_date(p, list); + else + commit_list_insert(p, list); + } + } return 0; } @@ -1005,8 +995,12 @@ static int process_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, p->object.flags |= left_flag; if (!(p->object.flags & SEEN)) { p->object.flags |= SEEN; - if (list) - commit_list_insert_by_date_cached(p, list, cached_base, cache_ptr); + if (list) { + if (insert_by_date) + commit_list_insert_by_date(p, list); + else + commit_list_insert(p, list); + } } if (revs->first_parent_only) break; @@ -1250,7 +1244,7 @@ static int limit_list(struct rev_info *revs) if (revs->max_age != -1 && (commit->date < revs->max_age)) obj->flags |= UNINTERESTING; - if (process_parents(revs, commit, &list, NULL) < 0) + if (process_parents(revs, commit, &list, 1) < 0) return -1; if (obj->flags & UNINTERESTING) { mark_parents_uninteresting(commit); @@ -3117,7 +3111,7 @@ static void explore_walk_step(struct rev_info *revs) if (revs->max_age != -1 && (c->date < revs->max_age)) c->object.flags |= UNINTERESTING; - if (process_parents(revs, c, NULL, NULL) < 0) + if (process_parents(revs, c, NULL, 0) < 0) return; if (c->object.flags & UNINTERESTING) @@ -3260,7 +3254,7 @@ static void expand_topo_walk(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit) { struct commit_list *p; struct topo_walk_info *info = revs->topo_walk_info; - if (process_parents(revs, commit, NULL, NULL) < 0) { + if (process_parents(revs, commit, NULL, 0) < 0) { if (!revs->ignore_missing_links) die("Failed to traverse parents of commit %s", oid_to_hex(&commit->object.oid)); @@ -3341,14 +3335,14 @@ int prepare_revision_walk(struct rev_info *revs) return 0; } -static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit **pp) +static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one_1(struct rev_info *revs, + struct commit **pp, + struct commit_list **list) { - struct commit_list *cache = NULL; - for (;;) { struct commit *p = *pp; if (!revs->limited) - if (process_parents(revs, p, &revs->commits, &cache) < 0) + if (process_parents(revs, p, list, 0) < 0) return rewrite_one_error; if (p->object.flags & UNINTERESTING) return rewrite_one_ok; @@ -3362,6 +3356,39 @@ static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit **pp } } +static struct commit_list *commit_list_merge_by_date(struct commit_list *a, + struct commit_list *b) +{ + struct commit_list *ret = NULL, **tail = &ret; + while (a && b) { + if (a->item->date >= b->item->date) { + *tail = a; + tail = &a->next; + a = a->next; + } else { + *tail = b; + tail = &b->next; + b = b->next; + } + } + if (a) + *tail = a; + else + *tail = b; + + return ret; +} + +static enum rewrite_result rewrite_one(struct rev_info *revs, + struct commit **pp) +{ + struct commit_list *list = NULL; + enum rewrite_result ret = rewrite_one_1(revs, pp, &list); + commit_list_sort_by_date(&list); + revs->commits = commit_list_merge_by_date(revs->commits, list); + return ret; +} + int rewrite_parents(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit, rewrite_parent_fn_t rewrite_parent) { @@ -3681,7 +3708,7 @@ static struct commit *get_revision_1(struct rev_info *revs) try_to_simplify_commit(revs, commit); else if (revs->topo_walk_info) expand_topo_walk(revs, commit); - else if (process_parents(revs, commit, &revs->commits, NULL) < 0) { + else if (process_parents(revs, commit, &revs->commits, 1) < 0) { if (!revs->ignore_missing_links) die("Failed to traverse parents of commit %s", oid_to_hex(&commit->object.oid)); ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-04-04 1:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-04-02 11:31 Bad performance when using git log --parents (used by gitk) Björn Pettersson A 2019-04-02 13:27 ` Jeff King 2019-04-02 15:07 ` Björn Pettersson A 2019-04-02 18:20 ` Johannes Schindelin 2019-04-04 1:36 ` Jeff King 2019-04-04 1:41 ` [PATCH] revision: use a prio_queue to hold rewritten parents Jeff King 2019-04-04 1:54 ` Jeff King
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.