* (unknown),
@ 2009-05-07 17:01 Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-07 17:13 ` Alex Riesen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Bevan Watkiss @ 2009-05-07 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
I am trying to create a working tree for people to read from and have it
update from a bare repository regularly. Right now I am using git-pull to
fetch the changes, but its running slow due to the size of my repo and the
speed of the hardware as it seems to be checking the working tree for any
changes.
Is there a way to make the pull ignore the local working tree and only look
at files that are changed in the change sets being pulled?
Bevan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-07 17:01 (unknown), Bevan Watkiss
@ 2009-05-07 17:13 ` Alex Riesen
2009-05-07 17:26 ` Bevan Watkiss
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Alex Riesen @ 2009-05-07 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bevan Watkiss; +Cc: git
2009/5/7 Bevan Watkiss <bevan.watkiss@cloakware.com>:
> I am trying to create a working tree for people to read from and have it
> update from a bare repository regularly. Right now I am using git-pull to
> fetch the changes, but it’s running slow due to the size of my repo and the
> speed of the hardware as it seems to be checking the working tree for any
> changes.
>
> Is there a way to make the pull ignore the local working tree and only look
> at files that are changed in the change sets being pulled?
Assuming you didn't modify that directory you pull into,
git pull will do almost exactly what you described. Almost,
because the operation (the merge) will involve looking for local
changes (committed and not).
It should be faster to do something like this:
git fetch && git reset --hard origin/master
Again, assuming the directory supposed to be read-only.
Otherwise, you have to merge (i.e. git pull).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 17:13 ` Alex Riesen
@ 2009-05-07 17:26 ` Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-07 18:18 ` Alex Riesen
2009-05-07 18:56 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 2 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Bevan Watkiss @ 2009-05-07 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Alex Riesen'; +Cc: git
It's the looking for local changes I'm trying to avoid. Doing a reset still
goes over the tree, which isn't helpful.
Basically I have a copy of my tree where only git can write to it, so I know
the files are right. The NAS box I have the tree on is slow, so reading the
tree adds about 10 minutes to the process when I only want to update a few
files.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Riesen [mailto:raa.lkml@gmail.com]
Sent: May 7, 2009 1:14 PM
To: Bevan Watkiss
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re:
2009/5/7 Bevan Watkiss <bevan.watkiss@cloakware.com>:
> I am trying to create a working tree for people to read from and have it
> update from a bare repository regularly. Right now I am using git-pull to
> fetch the changes, but its running slow due to the size of my repo and
the
> speed of the hardware as it seems to be checking the working tree for any
> changes.
>
> Is there a way to make the pull ignore the local working tree and only
look
> at files that are changed in the change sets being pulled?
Assuming you didn't modify that directory you pull into,
git pull will do almost exactly what you described. Almost,
because the operation (the merge) will involve looking for local
changes (committed and not).
It should be faster to do something like this:
git fetch && git reset --hard origin/master
Again, assuming the directory supposed to be read-only.
Otherwise, you have to merge (i.e. git pull).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-07 17:26 ` Bevan Watkiss
@ 2009-05-07 18:18 ` Alex Riesen
2009-05-07 18:48 ` Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-07 18:56 ` Linus Torvalds
1 sibling, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Alex Riesen @ 2009-05-07 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bevan Watkiss; +Cc: git
2009/5/7 Bevan Watkiss <bevan.watkiss@cloakware.com>:
> It's the looking for local changes I'm trying to avoid. Doing a reset still
> goes over the tree, which isn't helpful.
The stat(2) is slow? Then try setting core.ignoreStat (see manpage
of git config) to true: git config core.ignorestat true
and read below.
> Basically I have a copy of my tree where only git can write to it, so I know
> the files are right. The NAS box I have the tree on is slow, so reading the
> tree adds about 10 minutes to the process when I only want to update a few
> files.
Try "git checkout origin/master". It uses index and shouldn't checkout files
which are uptodate with the index. And actually, git merge should fast-forward,
in your case and will update just the changed files...
Of course, you can always compare HEAD and origin/master, and resolve
the changes yourself (see git diff -z --name-status), but it is unlikely to be
any faster.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 18:18 ` Alex Riesen
@ 2009-05-07 18:48 ` Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-07 19:56 ` Björn Steinbrink
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Bevan Watkiss @ 2009-05-07 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Alex Riesen'; +Cc: git
Still took 11 minutes.
The idea I've come up with today is something along the lines of
git fetch origin/master
git log --name-only ..<hash> | xargs git checkout -f --
This should work to quickly keep my files upto date, and I can then
periodically pull properly to move the HEAD.
Thanks for the info
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Riesen [mailto:raa.lkml@gmail.com]
Sent: May 7, 2009 2:18 PM
To: Bevan Watkiss
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re:
2009/5/7 Bevan Watkiss <bevan.watkiss@cloakware.com>:
> It's the looking for local changes I'm trying to avoid. Doing a reset
still
> goes over the tree, which isn't helpful.
The stat(2) is slow? Then try setting core.ignoreStat (see manpage
of git config) to true: git config core.ignorestat true
and read below.
> Basically I have a copy of my tree where only git can write to it, so I
know
> the files are right. The NAS box I have the tree on is slow, so reading
the
> tree adds about 10 minutes to the process when I only want to update a few
> files.
Try "git checkout origin/master". It uses index and shouldn't checkout files
which are uptodate with the index. And actually, git merge should
fast-forward,
in your case and will update just the changed files...
Of course, you can always compare HEAD and origin/master, and resolve
the changes yourself (see git diff -z --name-status), but it is unlikely to
be
any faster.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 17:26 ` Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-07 18:18 ` Alex Riesen
@ 2009-05-07 18:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 19:37 ` RE: Bevan Watkiss
1 sibling, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-07 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bevan Watkiss; +Cc: 'Alex Riesen', git
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Bevan Watkiss wrote:
>
> Basically I have a copy of my tree where only git can write to it, so I know
> the files are right. The NAS box I have the tree on is slow, so reading the
> tree adds about 10 minutes to the process when I only want to update a few
> files.
Ouch.
You could try doing
[core]
preloadindex = true
and see if that helps some of your loads. It does limit even the parallel
tree stat to 20 or so, but if most of your cost is in just doing the
lstat() over the files to see that they haven't changed, you might be
getting a factor-of-20 speedup for at least _some_ of what you do.
If you can, it might also be interesting to see system call trace patterns
(with times!) to see if there is something obviously horribly bad going
on. If you're running under Linux, and don't think the data contains
anything very private, send me the output of "strace -f -T" of the most
problematic operations, and maybe I can see if I can come up with anything
interesting.
I have long refused to use networked filesystems because I used to find
them -so- painful when working with CVS, so none of my performance work
has ever really directly concentrated on long-latency filesystems. Even
the index preload was all done "blind" with other people reporting issues
(and happily I could see some of the effects with local filesystems and
multiple CPU's ;).
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 18:56 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-07 19:37 ` Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-07 20:07 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Bevan Watkiss @ 2009-05-07 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Linus Torvalds'; +Cc: 'Alex Riesen', git
Looking at the trace it does appear that most of this is the lstat. It's
the problem of having many tiny files on a network drive, and trying to use
git for something it's not meant.
The log has 265430 lines of lstat and 10887 other lines. If you still want
the log file I'll strip out the directory names and send it off.
It would be nice to have an option that you can pull only the files that
changed in the changesets you are updating and ignore the state of the other
files.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: Linus Torvalds [mailto:torvalds@linux-foundation.org]
Sent: May 7, 2009 2:56 PM
To: Bevan Watkiss
Cc: 'Alex Riesen'; git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE:
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Bevan Watkiss wrote:
>
> Basically I have a copy of my tree where only git can write to it, so I
know
> the files are right. The NAS box I have the tree on is slow, so reading
the
> tree adds about 10 minutes to the process when I only want to update a few
> files.
Ouch.
You could try doing
[core]
preloadindex = true
and see if that helps some of your loads. It does limit even the parallel
tree stat to 20 or so, but if most of your cost is in just doing the
lstat() over the files to see that they haven't changed, you might be
getting a factor-of-20 speedup for at least _some_ of what you do.
If you can, it might also be interesting to see system call trace patterns
(with times!) to see if there is something obviously horribly bad going
on. If you're running under Linux, and don't think the data contains
anything very private, send me the output of "strace -f -T" of the most
problematic operations, and maybe I can see if I can come up with anything
interesting.
I have long refused to use networked filesystems because I used to find
them -so- painful when working with CVS, so none of my performance work
has ever really directly concentrated on long-latency filesystems. Even
the index preload was all done "blind" with other people reporting issues
(and happily I could see some of the effects with local filesystems and
multiple CPU's ;).
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-07 18:48 ` Bevan Watkiss
@ 2009-05-07 19:56 ` Björn Steinbrink
0 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Björn Steinbrink @ 2009-05-07 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bevan Watkiss; +Cc: 'Alex Riesen', git
[Please don't top-post...]
On 2009.05.07 14:48:20 -0400, Bevan Watkiss wrote:
> From: Alex Riesen [mailto:raa.lkml@gmail.com]
> > 2009/5/7 Bevan Watkiss <bevan.watkiss@cloakware.com>:
> > > It's the looking for local changes I'm trying to avoid. Doing a
> > > reset still goes over the tree, which isn't helpful.
> >
> > The stat(2) is slow? Then try setting core.ignoreStat (see manpage
> > of git config) to true: git config core.ignorestat true and read
> > below.
>
> Still took 11 minutes.
IIRC, to see the effects of core.ignorestat, you need to have updated
all files once. So you might need, for example, "git checkout -f HEAD"
(not sure if a plain checkout is enough) once first, and then the future
"git checkout $something" should be faster.
Björn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 19:37 ` RE: Bevan Watkiss
@ 2009-05-07 20:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 20:20 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-07 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bevan Watkiss; +Cc: 'Alex Riesen', git
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Bevan Watkiss wrote:
>
> Looking at the trace it does appear that most of this is the lstat. It's
> the problem of having many tiny files on a network drive, and trying to use
> git for something it's not meant.
>
> The log has 265430 lines of lstat and 10887 other lines. If you still want
> the log file I'll strip out the directory names and send it off.
Actually, if it's just the lstat's, then it's not all that interesting any
more, it's a known problem with at least a known _partial_ solution.
However, I think it turns out that we've only enabled the index preloading
with "git diff" and "git commit". Not on "git checkout".
So start off doing that
> [core]
> preloadindex = true
AND apply the following patch to git, and see how much (if any) that
helps. It sounds like you have a pretty damn large repository, together
with a slow filesystem. It really could be a big improvement.
The patch is TOTALLY UNTESTED. It also worries me that 'git checkout'
seems to do _two_ 'lstat()' calls per file. I didn't look any more
closely, but there may be other issues here.
Linus
---
builtin-checkout.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin-checkout.c b/builtin-checkout.c
index 15f0c32..3100ccd 100644
--- a/builtin-checkout.c
+++ b/builtin-checkout.c
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static int checkout_paths(struct tree *source_tree, const char **pathspec,
struct lock_file *lock_file = xcalloc(1, sizeof(struct lock_file));
newfd = hold_locked_index(lock_file, 1);
- if (read_cache() < 0)
+ if (read_cache_preload(pathspec) < 0)
return error("corrupt index file");
if (source_tree)
@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ static int merge_working_tree(struct checkout_opts *opts,
int newfd = hold_locked_index(lock_file, 1);
int reprime_cache_tree = 0;
- if (read_cache() < 0)
+ if (read_cache_preload(NULL) < 0)
return error("corrupt index file");
cache_tree_free(&active_cache_tree);
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 20:07 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-07 20:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 20:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-05-07 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 2 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-07 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bevan Watkiss; +Cc: 'Alex Riesen', git
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> The patch is TOTALLY UNTESTED. It also worries me that 'git checkout'
> seems to do _two_ 'lstat()' calls per file. I didn't look any more
> closely, but there may be other issues here.
Hmm. The second pass comes from
show_local_changes(&new->commit->object);
(this is the "git checkout" without actual filenames), and is suppressed
if we ask for a quiet checkout. But it's sad how it re-loads the index. I
wonder where the CE_VALID bit got dropped.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-07 20:20 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-07 20:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-05-07 21:33 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
1 sibling, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2009-05-07 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', git
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> The patch is TOTALLY UNTESTED. It also worries me that 'git checkout'
>> seems to do _two_ 'lstat()' calls per file. I didn't look any more
>> closely, but there may be other issues here.
>
> Hmm. The second pass comes from
>
> show_local_changes(&new->commit->object);
>
> (this is the "git checkout" without actual filenames), and is suppressed
> if we ask for a quiet checkout. But it's sad how it re-loads the index. I
> wonder where the CE_VALID bit got dropped.
I do not think you mean CE_VALID; CE_UPTODATE isn't it?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-07 20:43 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2009-05-07 21:33 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-07 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', git
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> I do not think you mean CE_VALID; CE_UPTODATE isn't it?
Yes, sorry.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 20:20 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 20:43 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2009-05-07 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 22:27 ` RE: david
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-07 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bevan Watkiss; +Cc: 'Alex Riesen', Git Mailing List
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Hmm. The second pass comes from
>
> show_local_changes(&new->commit->object);
>
> (this is the "git checkout" without actual filenames), and is suppressed
> if we ask for a quiet checkout. But it's sad how it re-loads the index. I
> wonder where the CE_VALID bit got dropped.
Ahh. It's not actually dropped, it's still there.
It's just that 'get_stat_data()' doesn't check it, when asking for
noncached data.
The logic of 'get_stat_data()' is that it will return the stat data from
the filesystem (unless we explicitly ask for just the cached case, in
which case it will take it from the cache entry directly).
However, the code doesn't realize that if ce_uptodate() is true, then we
already know the stat data, so no need to do the lstat() again, and we
can take it all from the cache entry regardless of whether we asked for
filesystem data or cached data.
So here's a better patch. It should cut down the 'lstat()' calls from "git
checkout" a lot.
It looks obvious enough, and it passes testing (and now "git checkout"
only does about as many lstat's as there are files in the repository, and
they seem to all be properly asynchronous if 'core.preloadindex' is set.
Somebody should check. It would be interesting to hear about whether this
makes a performance impact, especially with slow filesystems and/or other
operating systems that have a relatively higher cost for 'lstat()'.
Linus
---
builtin-checkout.c | 4 ++--
diff-lib.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin-checkout.c b/builtin-checkout.c
index 15f0c32..3100ccd 100644
--- a/builtin-checkout.c
+++ b/builtin-checkout.c
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static int checkout_paths(struct tree *source_tree, const char **pathspec,
struct lock_file *lock_file = xcalloc(1, sizeof(struct lock_file));
newfd = hold_locked_index(lock_file, 1);
- if (read_cache() < 0)
+ if (read_cache_preload(pathspec) < 0)
return error("corrupt index file");
if (source_tree)
@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ static int merge_working_tree(struct checkout_opts *opts,
int newfd = hold_locked_index(lock_file, 1);
int reprime_cache_tree = 0;
- if (read_cache() < 0)
+ if (read_cache_preload(NULL) < 0)
return error("corrupt index file");
cache_tree_free(&active_cache_tree);
diff --git a/diff-lib.c b/diff-lib.c
index a310fb2..0aba6cd 100644
--- a/diff-lib.c
+++ b/diff-lib.c
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ static int get_stat_data(struct cache_entry *ce,
const unsigned char *sha1 = ce->sha1;
unsigned int mode = ce->ce_mode;
- if (!cached) {
+ if (!cached && !ce_uptodate(ce)) {
int changed;
struct stat st;
changed = check_removed(ce, &st);
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-07 22:27 ` david
2009-05-07 22:36 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 8:17 ` Alex Riesen
2009-05-08 16:47 ` 'git checkout' and unlink() calls (was: Re: ) Kjetil Barvik
2 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: david @ 2009-05-07 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', Git Mailing List
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
this patch is worthwhile in itself, but the use case that is presented
here is slightly different, and I wonder if it's common enough to be worth
having a config option for.
his use case (as I understand it) is that the working tree is never
updated by anything other than git. it never recieves patches or manual
edits.
as such _any_ lstats of the tree are a waste of time. if git knows what
was checked out before and what is being checked out now, it can find what
files need to be changed.
this situation is not common for most developers, but it would be
reasonable for build farms, so it's not just a one-person issue.
David Lang
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> Hmm. The second pass comes from
>>
>> show_local_changes(&new->commit->object);
>>
>> (this is the "git checkout" without actual filenames), and is suppressed
>> if we ask for a quiet checkout. But it's sad how it re-loads the index. I
>> wonder where the CE_VALID bit got dropped.
>
> Ahh. It's not actually dropped, it's still there.
>
> It's just that 'get_stat_data()' doesn't check it, when asking for
> noncached data.
>
> The logic of 'get_stat_data()' is that it will return the stat data from
> the filesystem (unless we explicitly ask for just the cached case, in
> which case it will take it from the cache entry directly).
>
> However, the code doesn't realize that if ce_uptodate() is true, then we
> already know the stat data, so no need to do the lstat() again, and we
> can take it all from the cache entry regardless of whether we asked for
> filesystem data or cached data.
>
> So here's a better patch. It should cut down the 'lstat()' calls from "git
> checkout" a lot.
>
> It looks obvious enough, and it passes testing (and now "git checkout"
> only does about as many lstat's as there are files in the repository, and
> they seem to all be properly asynchronous if 'core.preloadindex' is set.
>
> Somebody should check. It would be interesting to hear about whether this
> makes a performance impact, especially with slow filesystems and/or other
> operating systems that have a relatively higher cost for 'lstat()'.
>
> Linus
>
> ---
> builtin-checkout.c | 4 ++--
> diff-lib.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin-checkout.c b/builtin-checkout.c
> index 15f0c32..3100ccd 100644
> --- a/builtin-checkout.c
> +++ b/builtin-checkout.c
> @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static int checkout_paths(struct tree *source_tree, const char **pathspec,
> struct lock_file *lock_file = xcalloc(1, sizeof(struct lock_file));
>
> newfd = hold_locked_index(lock_file, 1);
> - if (read_cache() < 0)
> + if (read_cache_preload(pathspec) < 0)
> return error("corrupt index file");
>
> if (source_tree)
> @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ static int merge_working_tree(struct checkout_opts *opts,
> int newfd = hold_locked_index(lock_file, 1);
> int reprime_cache_tree = 0;
>
> - if (read_cache() < 0)
> + if (read_cache_preload(NULL) < 0)
> return error("corrupt index file");
>
> cache_tree_free(&active_cache_tree);
> diff --git a/diff-lib.c b/diff-lib.c
> index a310fb2..0aba6cd 100644
> --- a/diff-lib.c
> +++ b/diff-lib.c
> @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ static int get_stat_data(struct cache_entry *ce,
> const unsigned char *sha1 = ce->sha1;
> unsigned int mode = ce->ce_mode;
>
> - if (!cached) {
> + if (!cached && !ce_uptodate(ce)) {
> int changed;
> struct stat st;
> changed = check_removed(ce, &st);
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 22:27 ` RE: david
@ 2009-05-07 22:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 22:43 ` RE: david
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-07 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: david; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', Git Mailing List
On Thu, 7 May 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
>
> his use case (as I understand it) is that the working tree is never updated by
> anything other than git. it never recieves patches or manual edits.
Well, you can certainly just use the CE_VALID bit in the index too (and
this time I really mean CE_VALID). But it won't help anybody else, so it
wouldn't be nearly as interesting. And I wonder how badly that code has
rotted, thanks to not getting used.
But yes, one thing to do would be
git update-index --assume-unchanged --refresh
which should hopefully set the bit, and then after that setting
'core.ignoreStat' should hopefully keep it set.
Of course, you had then better _never_ make any mistakes and touch the
files with non-git commands.
And hope that the code still works ;)
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 22:36 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-07 22:43 ` david
2009-05-07 23:00 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: david @ 2009-05-07 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', Git Mailing List
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
>>
>> his use case (as I understand it) is that the working tree is never updated by
>> anything other than git. it never recieves patches or manual edits.
>
> Well, you can certainly just use the CE_VALID bit in the index too (and
> this time I really mean CE_VALID). But it won't help anybody else, so it
> wouldn't be nearly as interesting. And I wonder how badly that code has
> rotted, thanks to not getting used.
>
> But yes, one thing to do would be
>
> git update-index --assume-unchanged --refresh
>
> which should hopefully set the bit, and then after that setting
> 'core.ignoreStat' should hopefully keep it set.
>
> Of course, you had then better _never_ make any mistakes and touch the
> files with non-git commands.
even with this a git checkout -f should replace all files, correct?
David Lang
> And hope that the code still works ;)
>
> Linus
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 22:43 ` RE: david
@ 2009-05-07 23:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 23:07 ` RE: david
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-07 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: david; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', Git Mailing List
On Thu, 7 May 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
>
> even with this a git checkout -f should replace all files, correct?
Hmm. I don't think so.
As far as I recall, "-f" only overrides certain errors (like unmerged
files or not up-to-date content), it doesn't change behavior wrt files
that git thinks are already up-to-date.
But I didn't check.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 23:00 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-07 23:07 ` david
2009-05-07 23:18 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: david @ 2009-05-07 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', Git Mailing List
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
>>
>> even with this a git checkout -f should replace all files, correct?
>
> Hmm. I don't think so.
>
> As far as I recall, "-f" only overrides certain errors (like unmerged
> files or not up-to-date content), it doesn't change behavior wrt files
> that git thinks are already up-to-date.
what about a reset --hard? (is there any command that would force the
files to be re-written, no matter what git thinks is already there)
David Lang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 23:07 ` RE: david
@ 2009-05-07 23:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 23:31 ` RE: david
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-07 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: david; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', Git Mailing List
On Thu, 7 May 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
>
> what about a reset --hard? (is there any command that would force the files to
> be re-written, no matter what git thinks is already there)
No, not "git reset --hard" either, I think. Git very much tries to avoid
rewriting files, and if you've told it that file contents are stable, it
will believe you.
In fact, I think people used CE_VALID explicitly for the missing parts of
"partial checkouts", so if we'd suddenly start writing files despite them
being marked as ok in the tree, I think we'd have broken that part.
(Although again - I'm not sure who would use CE_VALID and friends).
If you want to force everything to be rewritten, you should just remove
the index (or remove the specific entries in it if you want to do it just
to a particular file) and then do a "git checkout" to re-read and
re-populate the tree.
But I'm not really seeing why you want to do this. If you told git that it
shouldn't care about the working tree, why do you now want it do care?
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 23:18 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-07 23:31 ` david
2009-05-07 23:57 ` Johan Herland
2009-05-08 16:14 ` Bevan Watkiss
0 siblings, 2 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: david @ 2009-05-07 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', Git Mailing List
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
>>
>> what about a reset --hard? (is there any command that would force the files to
>> be re-written, no matter what git thinks is already there)
>
> No, not "git reset --hard" either, I think. Git very much tries to avoid
> rewriting files, and if you've told it that file contents are stable, it
> will believe you.
>
> In fact, I think people used CE_VALID explicitly for the missing parts of
> "partial checkouts", so if we'd suddenly start writing files despite them
> being marked as ok in the tree, I think we'd have broken that part.
>
> (Although again - I'm not sure who would use CE_VALID and friends).
>
> If you want to force everything to be rewritten, you should just remove
> the index (or remove the specific entries in it if you want to do it just
> to a particular file) and then do a "git checkout" to re-read and
> re-populate the tree.
>
> But I'm not really seeing why you want to do this. If you told git that it
> shouldn't care about the working tree, why do you now want it do care?
to be able to manually recover from the case where someone did things that
they weren't supposed to
removing the index and doing a checkout would be a reasonable thing to do
(at least conceptually), I will admit that I don't remember ever seeing a
command (or discussion of one) that would let me do that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-07 23:31 ` RE: david
@ 2009-05-07 23:57 ` Johan Herland
2009-05-08 16:14 ` Bevan Watkiss
1 sibling, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Johan Herland @ 2009-05-07 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: david; +Cc: git, Linus Torvalds, Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen'
On Friday 08 May 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
> removing the index and doing a checkout would be a reasonable thing to do
> (at least conceptually), I will admit that I don't remember ever seeing a
> command (or discussion of one) that would let me do that.
What about:
rm .git/index
git checkout -f
or maybe:
git update-index --no-assume-unchanged --refresh
git checkout -f
Hm?
....Johan
--
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-07 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 22:27 ` RE: david
@ 2009-05-08 8:17 ` Alex Riesen
2009-05-08 14:39 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 16:47 ` 'git checkout' and unlink() calls (was: Re: ) Kjetil Barvik
2 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Alex Riesen @ 2009-05-08 8:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, Git Mailing List
2009/5/7 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>:
>
> Somebody should check. It would be interesting to hear about whether this
> makes a performance impact, especially with slow filesystems and/or other
> operating systems that have a relatively higher cost for 'lstat()'.
>
I did (cygwin). My guess, the improvement is completely dwarfed by the
other overheads (like starting git and writing files).
# Without the patch
real 11m22.338s
user 0m54.629s
sys 8m33.638s
# With checkout index preload
real 11m14.361s
user 0m46.609s
sys 7m56.300s
The script:
#!/bin/sh
if [ "$1" = setup ]; then
for i in 1 2 3 4
do
n=$(date)
for f in `seq 1 10000`
do
echo "$n" >file$f
done
git add .
printf "Commit $i:"
git commit -m"$n"
done
exit
fi
export GIT_EXEC_PATH=/d/git-win
time for f in `seq 1 10`
do
$GIT_EXEC_PATH/git checkout master~3 &&
$GIT_EXEC_PATH/git checkout master~2 &&
$GIT_EXEC_PATH/git checkout master~1 &&
$GIT_EXEC_PATH/git checkout master
done
exit
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-08 8:17 ` Alex Riesen
@ 2009-05-08 14:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 15:51 ` Re: Brandon Casey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-08 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Riesen; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, Git Mailing List
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Alex Riesen wrote:
>
> I did (cygwin). My guess, the improvement is completely dwarfed by the
> other overheads (like starting git and writing files).
Oh, I meant "git checkout" as in not even switching branches, or perhaps
switching branches but just changing a single file (among thousands).
If you actually end up re-writing all files, then yes, it will obviously
be totally dominated by other things.
For example, in the kernel, switching between two branches that only
differ in one file (Makefile) went from 0.18 seconds down to 0.14 seconds
for me just because of the fewer lstat() calls.
Noticeable? No. But it might be more noticeable on some other OS, or with
some networked filesystem.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-08 14:39 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-08 15:51 ` Brandon Casey
2009-05-08 16:15 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Brandon Casey @ 2009-05-08 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Alex Riesen, Bevan Watkiss, Git Mailing List
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Alex Riesen wrote:
>> I did (cygwin). My guess, the improvement is completely dwarfed by the
>> other overheads (like starting git and writing files).
>
> Oh, I meant "git checkout" as in not even switching branches, or perhaps
> switching branches but just changing a single file (among thousands).
>
> If you actually end up re-writing all files, then yes, it will obviously
> be totally dominated by other things.
>
> For example, in the kernel, switching between two branches that only
> differ in one file (Makefile) went from 0.18 seconds down to 0.14 seconds
> for me just because of the fewer lstat() calls.
>
> Noticeable? No. But it might be more noticeable on some other OS, or with
> some networked filesystem.
plain 'git checkout' on linux kernel over NFS.
Best time without patch: 1.20 seconds
0.45user 0.71system 0:01.20elapsed 96%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+15467minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Best time with patch (core.preloadindex = true): 1.10 seconds
0.43user 4.00system 0:01.10elapsed 402%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+13999minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Best time with patch (core.preloadindex = false): 0.84 seconds
0.42user 0.39system 0:00.84elapsed 96%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+13965minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Best time with read_cache_preload patch only: 1.38 seconds
0.45user 4.42system 0:01.38elapsed 352%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+13990minor)pagefaults 0swaps
The read_cache_preload() changes actually slow things down for me for this
case.
Reduction in lstat's gives a nice 30% improvement.
-brandon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* RE:
2009-05-07 23:31 ` RE: david
2009-05-07 23:57 ` Johan Herland
@ 2009-05-08 16:14 ` Bevan Watkiss
1 sibling, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Bevan Watkiss @ 2009-05-08 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: david, 'Linus Torvalds'
Cc: 'Alex Riesen', 'Git Mailing List'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david@lang.hm [mailto:david@lang.hm]
> Sent: May 7, 2009 7:31 PM
> To: Linus Torvalds
> Cc: Bevan Watkiss; 'Alex Riesen'; Git Mailing List
> Subject: RE:
>
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 May 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
> >>
> >> what about a reset --hard? (is there any command that would force the
> files to
> >> be re-written, no matter what git thinks is already there)
> >
> > No, not "git reset --hard" either, I think. Git very much tries to avoid
> > rewriting files, and if you've told it that file contents are stable, it
> > will believe you.
> >
> > In fact, I think people used CE_VALID explicitly for the missing parts
> of
> > "partial checkouts", so if we'd suddenly start writing files despite
> them
> > being marked as ok in the tree, I think we'd have broken that part.
> >
> > (Although again - I'm not sure who would use CE_VALID and friends).
> >
> > If you want to force everything to be rewritten, you should just remove
> > the index (or remove the specific entries in it if you want to do it
> just
> > to a particular file) and then do a "git checkout" to re-read and
> > re-populate the tree.
> >
> > But I'm not really seeing why you want to do this. If you told git that
> it
> > shouldn't care about the working tree, why do you now want it do care?
>
> to be able to manually recover from the case where someone did things that
> they weren't supposed to
>
> removing the index and doing a checkout would be a reasonable thing to do
> (at least conceptually), I will admit that I don't remember ever seeing a
> command (or discussion of one) that would let me do that.
Added the patch and now the time is down to 4 1/2 minutes. Still a little
slow for my needs though.
Since I'm looking for a more instantaneous update I'll probably use
something more along the lines of
git fetch origin/master
git log --name-only ..HEAD
to get the list of files that have changed and copy them from a local
repository. Nightly doing a real pull to confirm the files are correct and
up to date.
Bevan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-08 15:51 ` Re: Brandon Casey
@ 2009-05-08 16:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 17:27 ` Re: Brandon Casey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-08 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brandon Casey; +Cc: Alex Riesen, Bevan Watkiss, Git Mailing List
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Brandon Casey wrote:
>
> plain 'git checkout' on linux kernel over NFS.
Thanks.
> Best time without patch: 1.20 seconds
>
> 0.45user 0.71system 0:01.20elapsed 96%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+15467minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> Best time with patch (core.preloadindex = true): 1.10 seconds
>
> 0.43user 4.00system 0:01.10elapsed 402%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+13999minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> Best time with patch (core.preloadindex = false): 0.84 seconds
>
> 0.42user 0.39system 0:00.84elapsed 96%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+13965minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Ok, that is _disgusting_. The parallelism clearly works (402%CPU), but the
system time overhead is horrible. Going from 0.39s system time to 4s of
system time is really quite nasty.
Is there any possibility you could oprofile this (run it in a loop to get
better profiles)? It very much sounds like some serious lock contention,
and I'd love to hear more about exactly which lock it's hitting.
Also, you're already almost totally CPU-bound, with 96% CPU for the
single-threaded csase. So you may be running over NFS, but your NFS server
is likely pretty good and/or the client just captures everything in the
caches anyway.
I don't recall what the Linux NFS stat cache timeout is, but it's less
than a minute. I suspect that you ran things in a tight loop, which is why
you then got effectively the local caching behavior for the best times.
Can you do a "best time" check but with a 60-second pause between runs
(and before), to see what happens when the client doesn't do caching?
> Best time with read_cache_preload patch only: 1.38 seconds
>
> 0.45user 4.42system 0:01.38elapsed 352%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+13990minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Yeah, here you're not getting any advantage of fewer lstats, and you
show the same "almost entirely CPU-bound on four cores" behavior, and the
same (probable) lock contention that has pushed the system time way up.
> The read_cache_preload() changes actually slow things down for me for this
> case.
>
> Reduction in lstat's gives a nice 30% improvement.
Yes, I think the one-liner lstat avoidance is a real fix regardless. And
the preloading sounds like it hits serialization overhead in the kernel,
which I'm not at all surprised at, but not being surprised doesn't mean
that I'm not interested to hear where it is.
The Linux VFS dcache itself should scale better than that (but who knows -
cacheline ping-pong due to lock contention can easily cause a 10x slowdown
even without being _totally_ contended all the time). So I would _suspect_
that it's some NFS lock that you're seeing, but I'd love to know more.
Btw, those system times are pretty high to begin with, so I'd love to know
kernel version and see a profile even without the parallel case and
presumably lock contention. Because while I probably have a faster
machine anyway, what I see iis:
[torvalds@nehalem linux]$ /usr/bin/time git checkout
0.13user 0.05system 0:00.19elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+13334minor)pagefaults 0swaps
ie my "system" time is _much_ lower than yours (and lower than your system
time). This is the 'without patch' time, btw, so this has extra lstat's.
And my system time is still lower than my user time, so I wonder where all
_your_ system time comes from. Your system time is much more comparable to
user time even in the good case, and I wonder why?
Could be just that kernel code tends to have more cache misses, and my 8MB
cache captures it all, and yours doesn't. Regardless, a profile would be
very interesting.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* 'git checkout' and unlink() calls (was: Re: )
2009-05-07 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 22:27 ` RE: david
2009-05-08 8:17 ` Alex Riesen
@ 2009-05-08 16:47 ` Kjetil Barvik
2009-05-08 17:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Kjetil Barvik @ 2009-05-08 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', Git Mailing List
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
| So here's a better patch. It should cut down the 'lstat()' calls from
| "git checkout" a lot.
|
| It looks obvious enough, and it passes testing (and now "git checkout"
| only does about as many lstat's as there are files in the repository,
| and they seem to all be properly asynchronous if 'core.preloadindex'
| is set.
I did a test by switching from v2.6.27 to v2.6.25, and now the only
"lstat()-difference" between with and without the -q option is 2
lstat() calls extra done without the -q option. And, compared to over
41 000 lstat() calls, that is not noticable. Very good!
| Somebody should check. It would be interesting to hear about whether
| this makes a performance impact, especially with slow filesystems
| and/or other operating systems that have a relatively higher cost for
| 'lstat()'.
Below is a table which is output from
strace -o result -T git checkout my-v2.6.25 /* from my-v2.6.27 */
where the "result" file is run through a perl script to pretty print it:
TOTAL 113988 100.000% OK:107252 NOT: 6736 6.263578 sec 55 usec/call
lstat64 41114 36.069% OK: 35829 NOT: 5285 0.710936 sec 17 usec/call
open 15027 13.183% OK: 13872 NOT: 1155 0.559302 sec 37 usec/call
unlink 14379 12.614% OK: 14374 NOT: 5 3.720167 sec 259 usec/call
write 14207 12.464% OK: 14207 NOT: 0 0.754196 sec 53 usec/call
close 13872 12.170% OK: 13872 NOT: 0 0.185572 sec 13 usec/call
fstat64 13862 12.161% OK: 13862 NOT: 0 0.169952 sec 12 usec/call
rmdir 551 0.483% OK: 269 NOT: 282 0.035534 sec 64 usec/call
brk 510 0.447% OK: 510 NOT: 0 0.014804 sec 29 usec/call
mkdir 174 0.153% OK: 174 NOT: 0 0.102625 sec 590 usec/call
mmap2 102 0.089% OK: 102 NOT: 0 0.001725 sec 17 usec/call
read 68 0.060% OK: 68 NOT: 0 0.000999 sec 15 usec/call
munmap 61 0.054% OK: 61 NOT: 0 0.005037 sec 83 usec/call
access 20 0.018% OK: 12 NOT: 8 0.000348 sec 17 usec/call
mprotect 13 0.011% OK: 13 NOT: 0 0.000193 sec 15 usec/call
stat64 7 0.006% OK: 7 NOT: 0 0.000109 sec 16 usec/call
getcwd 3 0.003% OK: 3 NOT: 0 0.000053 sec 18 usec/call
chdir 3 0.003% OK: 3 NOT: 0 0.000048 sec 16 usec/call
fcntl64 3 0.003% OK: 3 NOT: 0 0.000036 sec 12 usec/call
rename 2 0.002% OK: 2 NOT: 0 0.001553 sec 776 usec/call
setitimer 2 0.002% OK: 2 NOT: 0 0.000028 sec 14 usec/call
getdents64 2 0.002% OK: 2 NOT: 0 0.000039 sec 20 usec/call
uname 1 0.001% OK: 1 NOT: 0 0.000013 sec 13 usec/call
time 1 0.001% OK: 1 NOT: 0 0.000011 sec 11 usec/call
futex 1 0.001% OK: 1 NOT: 0 0.000013 sec 13 usec/call
readlink 1 0.001% OK: 0 NOT: 1 0.000018 sec 18 usec/call
execve 1 0.001% OK: 1 NOT: 0 0.000256 sec 256 usec/call
getrlimit 1 0.001% OK: 1 NOT: 0 0.000011 sec 11 usec/call
So, if the numbers from strace is trustable, 0.71 seconds is used on
41 114 calls to lstat64(). But, look at the unlink line, where each
call took 259 microseconds (= 0.259 milliseconds), and all 14 379
calls took 3.72 seconds.
It should be noted that when switching branch the other way (from .25
to .27), the unlink() calls used less time (below 160 microseconds
each). Also note that the above was tested by only 3 runs. Warm
cache. ext4 disk partition with git compiled with the USE_NSEC=1
option.
Most (all?) of the unlink() calls seems to be from the following lines
from the checkout_entry() funciton in entry.c
/*
* We unlink the old file, to get the new one with the
* right permissions (including umask, which is nasty
* to emulate by hand - much easier to let the system
* just do the right thing)
*/
if (S_ISDIR(st.st_mode)) {
/* If it is a gitlink, leave it alone! */
if (S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode))
return 0;
if (!state->force)
return error("%s is a directory", path);
remove_subtree(path);
} else if (unlink(path))
return error("unable to unlink old '%s' (%s)", path, strerror(errno));
-- kjetil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-08 16:15 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-08 17:27 ` Brandon Casey
2009-05-08 17:43 ` Re: Brandon Casey
2009-05-08 17:44 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 2 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Brandon Casey @ 2009-05-08 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Alex Riesen, Bevan Watkiss, Git Mailing List
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Brandon Casey wrote:
>> plain 'git checkout' on linux kernel over NFS.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Best time without patch: 1.20 seconds
>>
>> 0.45user 0.71system 0:01.20elapsed 96%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
>> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+15467minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>>
>> Best time with patch (core.preloadindex = true): 1.10 seconds
>>
>> 0.43user 4.00system 0:01.10elapsed 402%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
>> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+13999minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>>
>> Best time with patch (core.preloadindex = false): 0.84 seconds
>>
>> 0.42user 0.39system 0:00.84elapsed 96%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
>> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+13965minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> Ok, that is _disgusting_. The parallelism clearly works (402%CPU), but the
> system time overhead is horrible. Going from 0.39s system time to 4s of
> system time is really quite nasty.
>
> Is there any possibility you could oprofile this (run it in a loop to get
> better profiles)? It very much sounds like some serious lock contention,
> and I'd love to hear more about exactly which lock it's hitting.
Possibly, I'll see if our sysadmin has time to "play".
> Also, you're already almost totally CPU-bound, with 96% CPU for the
> single-threaded csase. So you may be running over NFS, but your NFS server
> is likely pretty good and/or the client just captures everything in the
> caches anyway.
>
> I don't recall what the Linux NFS stat cache timeout is, but it's less
> than a minute. I suspect that you ran things in a tight loop, which is why
> you then got effectively the local caching behavior for the best times.
Yeah, that's what I did.
> Can you do a "best time" check but with a 60-second pause between runs
> (and before), to see what happens when the client doesn't do caching?
No problem.
>> Best time with read_cache_preload patch only: 1.38 seconds
>>
>> 0.45user 4.42system 0:01.38elapsed 352%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
>> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+13990minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> Yeah, here you're not getting any advantage of fewer lstats, and you
> show the same "almost entirely CPU-bound on four cores" behavior, and the
> same (probable) lock contention that has pushed the system time way up.
>
>> The read_cache_preload() changes actually slow things down for me for this
>> case.
>>
>> Reduction in lstat's gives a nice 30% improvement.
>
> Yes, I think the one-liner lstat avoidance is a real fix regardless. And
> the preloading sounds like it hits serialization overhead in the kernel,
> which I'm not at all surprised at, but not being surprised doesn't mean
> that I'm not interested to hear where it is.
>
> The Linux VFS dcache itself should scale better than that (but who knows -
> cacheline ping-pong due to lock contention can easily cause a 10x slowdown
> even without being _totally_ contended all the time). So I would _suspect_
> that it's some NFS lock that you're seeing, but I'd love to know more.
>
> Btw, those system times are pretty high to begin with, so I'd love to know
> kernel version and see a profile even without the parallel case and
> presumably lock contention. Because while I probably have a faster
> machine anyway, what I see iis:
>
> [torvalds@nehalem linux]$ /usr/bin/time git checkout
> 0.13user 0.05system 0:00.19elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+13334minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> ie my "system" time is _much_ lower than yours (and lower than your system
> time). This is the 'without patch' time, btw, so this has extra lstat's.
> And my system time is still lower than my user time, so I wonder where all
> _your_ system time comes from. Your system time is much more comparable to
> user time even in the good case, and I wonder why?
>
> Could be just that kernel code tends to have more cache misses, and my 8MB
> cache captures it all, and yours doesn't. Regardless, a profile would be
> very interesting.
Something is definitely up.
I provided timing results for your original preload_cache implementation
which affected status and diff, which was part of the justification for
merging it in.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/100998
You can see that cold cache system time for 'git status' went from 0.36 to
0.52 seconds. Fine. I just ran it again, and now I'm getting system time
of 10 seconds! This is the same machine.
Similarly for the cold cache 'git checkout' reruns:
Best without patch: 6.02 (systime 1.57)
0.43user 1.57system 0:06.02elapsed 33%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
5336inputs+0outputs (12major+15472minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Best with patch (preload_cache,lstat reduction): 2.69 (systime 10.47)
0.45user 10.47system 0:02.69elapsed 405%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
5336inputs+0outputs (12major+13985minor)pagefaults 0swaps
OS: Centos4.7
$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.9-78.0.17.ELsmp (mockbuild@builder16.centos.org) (gcc version 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-9)) #1 SMP Thu Mar 12 20:05:15 EDT 2009
-brandon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-08 17:27 ` Re: Brandon Casey
@ 2009-05-08 17:43 ` Brandon Casey
2009-05-08 21:49 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 17:44 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
1 sibling, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Brandon Casey @ 2009-05-08 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Alex Riesen, Bevan Watkiss, Git Mailing List
Brandon Casey wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> And
>> the preloading sounds like it hits serialization overhead in the kernel,
>> which I'm not at all surprised at, but not being surprised doesn't mean
>> that I'm not interested to hear where it is.
>>
>> The Linux VFS dcache itself should scale better than that (but who knows -
>> cacheline ping-pong due to lock contention can easily cause a 10x slowdown
>> even without being _totally_ contended all the time). So I would _suspect_
>> that it's some NFS lock that you're seeing, but I'd love to know more.
>>
>> Btw, those system times are pretty high to begin with, so I'd love to know
>> kernel version and see a profile even without the parallel case and
>> presumably lock contention.
Here's an strace of 'git checkout':
Before (cold cache):
% time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall
------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
98.60 6.365501 111 57432 lstat64
0.50 0.031984 359 89 2 close
0.25 0.015818 115 137 77 open
0.12 0.007670 23 339 write
0.09 0.005631 110 51 munmap
0.08 0.004873 49 99 69 stat64
0.07 0.004771 140 34 15 access
0.05 0.003083 280 11 5 waitpid
0.05 0.002973 10 284 brk
0.04 0.002816 469 6 execve
<snip>
After (cold cache, no lstat fix, just cache_preload):
% time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall
------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
90.90 23.717981 413 57432 lstat64
8.72 2.273917 162423 14 2 futex
0.12 0.032241 948 34 close
0.04 0.011507 202 57 munmap
0.04 0.009648 132 73 mmap2
0.03 0.008508 149 57 20 open
0.03 0.007771 311 25 mprotect
0.03 0.007758 388 20 clone
0.03 0.007548 23 334 write
0.02 0.005247 262 20 10 access
-brandon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-08 17:27 ` Re: Brandon Casey
2009-05-08 17:43 ` Re: Brandon Casey
@ 2009-05-08 17:44 ` Linus Torvalds
1 sibling, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-08 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brandon Casey; +Cc: Alex Riesen, Bevan Watkiss, Git Mailing List
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Brandon Casey wrote:
>
> Something is definitely up.
>
> I provided timing results for your original preload_cache implementation
> which affected status and diff, which was part of the justification for
> merging it in.
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/100998
>
> You can see that cold cache system time for 'git status' went from 0.36 to
> 0.52 seconds. Fine. I just ran it again, and now I'm getting system time
> of 10 seconds! This is the same machine.
Grr.
> OS: Centos4.7
>
> $ cat /proc/version
> Linux version 2.6.9-78.0.17.ELsmp (mockbuild@builder16.centos.org) (gcc version 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-9)) #1 SMP Thu Mar 12 20:05:15 EDT 2009
Ok, if that's really the true kernel version (2.6.9), then that's some
ancient kernel there. At the same time it's obviously been recompiled
recently, so it got updated. At a guess, something got screwed up. But I
have absolutely _no_ way to even guess what kernel patches centos puts in
their ancient kernel builds.
Perhaps a centos bugzilla entry might be appropriate? Somebody there might
know what changed.
Of course, it _could_ be an external change too, where the NFS server or
timing changed just enough to trigger a pre-existing issue. But that would
be pretty unlikely.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re: 'git checkout' and unlink() calls (was: Re: )
2009-05-08 16:47 ` 'git checkout' and unlink() calls (was: Re: ) Kjetil Barvik
@ 2009-05-08 17:57 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-08 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kjetil Barvik; +Cc: Bevan Watkiss, 'Alex Riesen', Git Mailing List
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Kjetil Barvik wrote:
>
> So, if the numbers from strace is trustable, 0.71 seconds is used on
> 41 114 calls to lstat64(). But, look at the unlink line, where each
> call took 259 microseconds (= 0.259 milliseconds), and all 14 379
> calls took 3.72 seconds.
The system call times from strace are not really trustworthy. The overhead
of tracing and in particular all the context switching back and forth
between the tracer and the tracee means that the numbers should be taken
with a large grain of salt.
That said, they definitely aren't totally made up, and they tend to show
real issues.
In this particular case, what is going on is that 'lstat()' does no IO at
all, while 'unlink()' generally at the very least will add things to some
journal etc, and when the journal fills up, it will force IO.
So doing 15k unlink() calls really is _much_ more expensive than doing 41k
lstat() calls, since the latter will never force any IO at all (ok, so
even doing just an lstat() may add atime updates etc to directories, but
even if atime is enabled, that tends to only trigger one IO per second at
most, and we never have to do any sync IO).
> It should be noted that when switching branch the other way (from .25
> to .27), the unlink() calls used less time (below 160 microseconds
> each).
I don't think they are really "260 us each" or "160 us each". It's rather
more likely that there are a few that are big due to forced IO, and most
are in the couple of us case.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-08 17:43 ` Re: Brandon Casey
@ 2009-05-08 21:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 23:04 ` Re: Brandon Casey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-08 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brandon Casey; +Cc: Alex Riesen, Bevan Watkiss, Git Mailing List
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Brandon Casey wrote:
>
> Before (cold cache):
> % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
> 98.60 6.365501 111 57432 lstat64
>
> After (cold cache, no lstat fix, just cache_preload):
> % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall
> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
> 90.90 23.717981 413 57432 lstat64
Yes, interesting. I really smells like it's all fixed performance and
there is a single lock around it. That 111us -> 413us increase is very
consistent with four cores all serializing on the same lock. So it
parallelizes to all four cores, but then will take exactly as long in
total.
Quite frankly, 2.6.9 is so old that I have absolutely _no_ memory of what
we used to do back then. Not that I follow NFS all that much even now - I
did some of the original page cache and dentry work on the Linux NFS
client way back when, but that was when I actually used NFS (and we were
converting everything to the page cache).
I've long since forgotten everything I knew, and I'm just as happy about
that. But clearly something is bad, and equally clearly it worked much
better for you a couple of months ago. Which does imply that there's
probably some centos issues.
Can you ask your MIS people if it would be possible to at least _test_ a
new kernel? In 2.6.9, I'm quite frankly inclined to just say "it will
likely never get fixed unless centos knows what it is", but if you test a
more modern kernel and see similar issues, then I'll be intrigued.
It's kind of sad, but at the same time, NFS was using the BKL up into
2.6.26 or something like that (about a year ago). And your kernel is
based on something _much_ older.
That said, even with the BKL, NFS should allow all the actual IO to be
done in parallel (since the BKL is dropped on scheduling). But it's really
wasting a _lot_ of CPU time, and that hurts you enormously, even though
the cold-cache case still seems to win, judging by your other email:
> Best without patch: 6.02 (systime 1.57)
>
> 0.43user 1.57system 0:06.02elapsed 33%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 5336inputs+0outputs (12major+15472minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> Best with patch (preload_cache,lstat reduction): 2.69 (systime 10.47)
>
> 0.45user 10.47system 0:02.69elapsed 405%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 5336inputs+0outputs (12major+13985minor)pagefaults 0swaps
so there's a _huge_ increase in system time (again), but the change from
33% CPU -> 405% CPU makes up for it and you get lower elapsed times.
But that 7x increase in system time really is sad. I do suspect it's
likely due to spinning on the BKL. And if so, then a modern kernel should
fix it.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-08 21:49 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
@ 2009-05-08 23:04 ` Brandon Casey
2009-05-09 16:44 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 34+ messages in thread
From: Brandon Casey @ 2009-05-08 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Alex Riesen, Bevan Watkiss, Git Mailing List
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 May 2009, Brandon Casey wrote:
>> Before (cold cache):
>> % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall
>> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
>> 98.60 6.365501 111 57432 lstat64
>>
>> After (cold cache, no lstat fix, just cache_preload):
>> % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall
>> ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
>> 90.90 23.717981 413 57432 lstat64
>
> Yes, interesting. I really smells like it's all fixed performance and
> there is a single lock around it. That 111us -> 413us increase is very
> consistent with four cores all serializing on the same lock. So it
> parallelizes to all four cores, but then will take exactly as long in
> total.
Makes sense to me.
> Quite frankly, 2.6.9 is so old that I have absolutely _no_ memory of what
> we used to do back then. Not that I follow NFS all that much even now - I
> did some of the original page cache and dentry work on the Linux NFS
> client way back when, but that was when I actually used NFS (and we were
> converting everything to the page cache).
>
> I've long since forgotten everything I knew, and I'm just as happy about
> that. But clearly something is bad, and equally clearly it worked much
> better for you a couple of months ago. Which does imply that there's
> probably some centos issues.
In case you're not aware CentOS is just repacked RHEL. I'm not sure if
centos has the resources for investigating problems. We also have RHEL
licenses, so hopefully I'll be able to come up with something to submit
to them.
> Can you ask your MIS people if it would be possible to at least _test_ a
> new kernel? In 2.6.9, I'm quite frankly inclined to just say "it will
> likely never get fixed unless centos knows what it is", but if you test a
> more modern kernel and see similar issues, then I'll be intrigued.
I think it's possible. Just not on this specific machine. Not sure what
we have lying around multi-processor wise. Also, it won't happen until
next week since it's late Friday afternoon here.
btw, I've since done some more testing on some centos5.3 boxes we have.
I get similar results (less ancient kernel 2.6.18). I've also scanned
through the errata announcements that RedHat has released for their
kernel updates. A few of them involve NFS. Possibly, whatever RedHat
modified in the 5.X kernel was also backported to the 4.X kernel.
> It's kind of sad, but at the same time, NFS was using the BKL up into
> 2.6.26 or something like that (about a year ago). And your kernel is
> based on something _much_ older.
>
> That said, even with the BKL, NFS should allow all the actual IO to be
> done in parallel (since the BKL is dropped on scheduling). But it's really
> wasting a _lot_ of CPU time, and that hurts you enormously, even though
> the cold-cache case still seems to win, judging by your other email:
>
>> Best without patch: 6.02 (systime 1.57)
>>
>> 0.43user 1.57system 0:06.02elapsed 33%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
>> 5336inputs+0outputs (12major+15472minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>>
>> Best with patch (preload_cache,lstat reduction): 2.69 (systime 10.47)
>>
>> 0.45user 10.47system 0:02.69elapsed 405%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
>> 5336inputs+0outputs (12major+13985minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> so there's a _huge_ increase in system time (again), but the change from
> 33% CPU -> 405% CPU makes up for it and you get lower elapsed times.
>
> But that 7x increase in system time really is sad. I do suspect it's
> likely due to spinning on the BKL. And if so, then a modern kernel should
> fix it.
Thanks, I'll try to test next week.
-brandon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
* Re:
2009-05-08 23:04 ` Re: Brandon Casey
@ 2009-05-09 16:44 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 0 replies; 34+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2009-05-09 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brandon Casey; +Cc: Alex Riesen, Bevan Watkiss, Git Mailing List
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Brandon Casey wrote:
>
> btw, I've since done some more testing on some centos5.3 boxes we have.
> I get similar results (less ancient kernel 2.6.18).
Yes, 2.6.18 is still much too old to matter from a locking standpoint.
When people initially worried about scalability, the issues were more
about server side stuff and the cached cases. NFS (as a client) is
certainly used on the server side too, but it tends to be a somewhat
secondary worry where only specific parts really matter. So people worked
a lot more on the core kernel, and on local high-performance filesystem
scaling.
Only lately have we been pretty aggressive about finally really getting
rid of the old "single big lock" (BKL) model entirely, or moving outwards
from the core.
And while we removed the BKL from the normal NFS read/write paths long
long ago, all the name lookup and directory handling code still had it
until a year ago.
That, btw, is directly explained by perceived scalability issues: NFS is
fairly often used as the backing store for a database and scaling thus
matters there. But databases tend to keep their few big files open and use
pread/pwrite - so pathname lookup is not nearly as significant for server
ops as plain read/write.
(Pathname lookup is important for things like web servers etc, but they
rely heavily on caching for that, and the cached case scales fine).
> I've also scanned through the errata announcements that RedHat has
> released for their kernel updates. A few of them involve NFS.
> Possibly, whatever RedHat modified in the 5.X kernel was also backported
> to the 4.X kernel.
That is very possibly the case. Expanding the BKL usage in some case could
easily trigger the lock getting contention - and the way lock contention
works, once you get a just even a small _hint_ of contention, things often
fall off a cliff. The contention slows locking down, which in turn causes
more CPU usage, which in turn causes _more_ contention.
So even a small amount of extra locking - or even just slowing down some
code that was inside the lock - can have catastrophic behavioural changes
when the lock is close to being a problem. You do not get a nice gradual
slowdown at all - you just hit a hard wall.
I guess I should really try to set up some fileserver here at home to
improve my test coverage. And to do better backups (or the little private
data I have that I can't just mirror out to the world by turning it into
an open-source project ;^)
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 34+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-05-09 16:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-05-07 17:01 (unknown), Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-07 17:13 ` Alex Riesen
2009-05-07 17:26 ` Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-07 18:18 ` Alex Riesen
2009-05-07 18:48 ` Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-07 19:56 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-05-07 18:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 19:37 ` RE: Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-07 20:07 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 20:20 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 20:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-05-07 21:33 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 22:27 ` RE: david
2009-05-07 22:36 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 22:43 ` RE: david
2009-05-07 23:00 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 23:07 ` RE: david
2009-05-07 23:18 ` RE: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-07 23:31 ` RE: david
2009-05-07 23:57 ` Johan Herland
2009-05-08 16:14 ` Bevan Watkiss
2009-05-08 8:17 ` Alex Riesen
2009-05-08 14:39 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 15:51 ` Re: Brandon Casey
2009-05-08 16:15 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 17:27 ` Re: Brandon Casey
2009-05-08 17:43 ` Re: Brandon Casey
2009-05-08 21:49 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 23:04 ` Re: Brandon Casey
2009-05-09 16:44 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 17:44 ` Re: Linus Torvalds
2009-05-08 16:47 ` 'git checkout' and unlink() calls (was: Re: ) Kjetil Barvik
2009-05-08 17:57 ` Linus Torvalds
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).