From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <email@example.com> To: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Eric Wong <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Junio C Hamano <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] update-server-info: avoid needless overwrites Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 13:57:35 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190514112451.GB26957@sigill.intra.peff.net> On Tue, May 14 2019, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:33:11PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > I think it would work because any update-server-info, whether from A or >> > B, will take into account the full current repo state (and we don't look >> > at that state until we take the lock). So you might get an interleaved >> > "A-push, B-push, B-maint, A-maint", but that's OK. A-maint will >> > represent B's state when it runs. >> >> Maybe we're talking about different things. I mean the following >> sequence: >> >> 1. Refs "X" and "Y" are at X=A Y=A >> 2. Concurrent push #1 happens, updating X from A..F >> 3. Concurrent push #2 happens, updating Y from A..F >> 4. Concurrent push #1 succeeds >> 5. Concurrent push #1 starts update-server-info. Reads X=F Y=A >> 5. Concurrent push #2 succeeds >> 6. Concurrent push #2 starts update-server-info. Reads X=F Y=F >> 7. Concurrent push #2's update-server-info finishes, X=F Y=F written to "info" >> 8. Concurrent push #1's update-server-info finishes, X=A Y=F written to "info" >> >> I.e. because we have per-ref locks and no lock at all on >> update-server-info (but that would need to be a global ref lock, not >> just on the "info" files) we can have a push that's already read "X"'s >> value as "A" while updating "Y" win the race against an >> update-server-info that updated "X"'s value to "F". >> >> It will get fixed on the next push (at least as far as "X"'s value >> goes), but until that time dumb clients will falsely see that "X" hasn't >> been updated. > > That's the same situation. But I thought we were talking about having an > update-server-info lock. In which case the #2 update-server-info or the > #1 update-server-info runs in its entirety, and cannot have their read > and write steps interleaved (that's what I meant by "don't look at the > state until we take the lock"). Then that gives us a strict ordering: we > know that _some_ update-server-info (be it #1 or #2's) will run after > any given update. Yeah you're right. I *thought* in my last E-mail we were talking about the current state, but re-reading upthread I see that was a fail on my part. An update-server-info lock would solve this indeed. We could still end up with a situation where whatever a naïve version of the lockfile API would fail for the "new" update since the old one was underway, so we'd need something similar to core.*Ref*Timeout, but if we ran into a *.lock or the timeout we could exit non-zero, as opposed to silently failing like it does now when it races.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-14 11:57 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-05-11 1:34 Eric Wong 2019-05-11 7:35 ` Eric Sunshine 2019-05-11 20:47 ` [PATCH v2] " Eric Wong 2019-05-11 21:17 ` [PATCH] " Eric Wong 2019-05-11 23:37 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-12 0:38 ` Eric Wong 2019-05-12 4:08 ` Jeff King 2019-05-12 7:16 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-14 9:47 ` Jeff King 2019-05-14 10:33 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-14 11:24 ` Jeff King 2019-05-14 11:57 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message] 2019-05-14 11:50 ` Eric Wong 2019-05-14 12:13 ` dumb HTTP things I want to do Eric Wong 2019-05-14 12:27 ` Jeff King 2019-05-14 12:19 ` [PATCH] update-server-info: avoid needless overwrites Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-14 12:29 ` Jeff King 2019-05-15 0:45 ` [PATCH 2/1] server-info: conditionally update on fetch Eric Wong 2019-05-15 20:38 ` [WIP] repack leaving stale entries in objects/info/packs Eric Wong 2019-05-15 21:48 ` Jeff King 2019-05-23 8:59 ` [PATCH] server-info: do not list unlinked packs Eric Wong 2019-05-23 10:24 ` Jeff King 2019-05-23 17:27 ` [PATCH v2] " Eric Wong 2019-05-24 6:05 ` Jeff King 2019-05-24 7:34 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2019-05-13 23:17 ` [PATCH v3] update-server-info: avoid needless overwrites Eric Wong
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH] update-server-info: avoid needless overwrites' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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.