(unknown),

(unknown),

[Bevan Watkiss]

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?

Bevan

Re:

[Alex Riesen]

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).

RE:

[Bevan Watkiss]

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 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).

Re:

[Alex Riesen]

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.

RE:

[Bevan Watkiss]

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.

Re:

[Björn Steinbrink]

[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

RE:

[Linus Torvalds]

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
	

RE:

[Bevan Watkiss]

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
	

RE:

[Linus Torvalds]

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);

RE:

[Linus Torvalds]

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

Re:

[Junio C Hamano]

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?

Re:

[Linus Torvalds]

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

RE:

[Linus Torvalds]

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);

RE:

[david]

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
>

RE:

[Linus Torvalds]

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

RE:

[david]

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
>

RE:

[Linus Torvalds]

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

RE:

[david]

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

RE:

[Linus Torvalds]

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

RE:

[david]

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.

Re:

[Johan Herland]

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

RE:

[Bevan Watkiss]

> -----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

Re:

[Alex Riesen]

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

Re:

[Linus Torvalds]

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

Re:

[Brandon Casey]

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

Re:

[Linus Torvalds]

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

Re:

[Brandon Casey]

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

Re:

[Brandon Casey]

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

Re:

[Linus Torvalds]

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

Re:

[Brandon Casey]

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

Re:

[Linus Torvalds]

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

Re:

[Linus Torvalds]

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

'git checkout' and unlink() calls (was: Re: )

[Kjetil Barvik]

* 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

Re: 'git checkout' and unlink() calls (was: Re: )

[Linus Torvalds]

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