git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, stolee@gmail.com,
	git@jeffhostetler.com, Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>,
	Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] csum-file.h: increase hashfile buffer size
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 03:31:28 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YKNtUKIHoCCOMYmn@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9dc602f6c4221e2259778842ec3d1eda57508333.1621254292.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 12:24:50PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:

> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
> 
> The hashfile API uses a hard-coded buffer size of 8KB and has ever since
> it was introduced in c38138c (git-pack-objects: write the pack files
> with a SHA1 csum, 2005-06-26). It performs a similar function to the
> hashing buffers in read-cache.c, but that code was updated from 8KB to
> 128KB in f279894 (read-cache: make the index write buffer size 128K,
> 2021-02-18). The justification there was that do_write_index() improves
> from 1.02s to 0.72s.
> 
> There is a buffer, check_buffer, that is used to verify the check_fd
> file descriptor. When this buffer increases to 128K to fit the data
> being flushed, it causes the stack to overflow the limits placed in the
> test suite. By moving this to a static buffer, we stop using stack data
> for this purpose, but we lose some thread-safety. This change makes it
> unsafe to write to multiple hashfiles across different threads.
> 
> By adding a new trace2 region in the chunk-format API, we can see that
> the writing portion of 'git multi-pack-index write' lowers from ~1.49s
> to ~1.47s on a Linux machine. These effects may be more pronounced or
> diminished on other filesystems. The end-to-end timing is too noisy to
> have a definitive change either way.

I think there is one thing missing from this commit message: why we want
to do this. You mentioned that read-cache got larger by using a bigger
buffer. But here we use a bigger buffer, and it produces no improvement
larger than the noise. And on top of it, you describe the static-buffer
downsides. So why not just skip it? :)

And the answer is in the larger series: we want to be able to make use
of the hashfile API in read-cache, but without regressing the
performance. One sentence at the end of the first paragraph would
clarify that quite a bit, I think.

> +static void verify_buffer_or_die(struct hashfile *f,
> +				 const void *buf,
> +				 unsigned int count)
> +{
> +	static unsigned char check_buffer[WRITE_BUFFER_SIZE];
> +	ssize_t ret = read_in_full(f->check_fd, check_buffer, count);
> +
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		die_errno("%s: sha1 file read error", f->name);
> +	if (ret != count)
> +		die("%s: sha1 file truncated", f->name);
> +	if (memcmp(buf, check_buffer, count))
> +		die("sha1 file '%s' validation error", f->name);
> +}

Does this have to use the same-size buffer? We could read and check
smaller chunks, like:

  while (count > 0) {
	static unsigned char chunk[1024];
	unsigned int chunk_len = sizeof(chunk) < count ? sizeof(chunk) : count;
	ssize_t ret = read_in_full(f->check_fd, chunk, chunk_len);

        if (ret < 0)
	   ...
	if (ret != count)
	   ...
	if (memcmp(buf, chunk, chunk_len))
	   ...
	buf += chunk_len;
	count -= chunk_len;
  }

We may prefer to use the larger buffer size for performance, but I think
this "check" mode is only used for "index-pack --verify" and similar.
The performance may matter a lot less to us there than for more
frequently used code paths like index writing.

I don't have a strong preference either way, but it's nice to avoid
introducing non-reentrancy to a function (Junio's heap suggestion is
also quite reasonable).

-Peff

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-05-18  7:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-26 19:12 [PATCH 0/3] Convert index writes to use hashfile API Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-03-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 1/3] csum-file: add nested_hashfile() Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-03-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 2/3] read-cache: use hashfile instead of git_hash_ctx Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-03-29 15:04   ` Derrick Stolee
2021-03-29 19:10     ` Derrick Stolee
2021-03-26 19:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] read-cache: delete unused hashing methods Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-03-26 20:16 ` [PATCH 0/3] Convert index writes to use hashfile API Derrick Stolee
2021-05-17 12:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] " Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-05-17 12:24   ` [PATCH v2 1/4] hashfile: use write_in_full() Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-05-17 12:24   ` [PATCH v2 2/4] csum-file.h: increase hashfile buffer size Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-05-17 21:54     ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-18  7:33       ` Jeff King
2021-05-18 14:44         ` Derrick Stolee
2021-05-18  7:31     ` Jeff King [this message]
2021-05-18  7:42       ` Jeff King
2021-05-17 12:24   ` [PATCH v2 3/4] read-cache: use hashfile instead of git_hash_ctx Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-05-17 22:13     ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-18 14:16       ` Derrick Stolee
2021-05-17 12:24   ` [PATCH v2 4/4] read-cache: delete unused hashing methods Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-05-18 18:32   ` [PATCH v3 0/4] Convert index writes to use hashfile API Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-05-18 18:32     ` [PATCH v3 1/4] hashfile: use write_in_full() Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-05-18 18:32     ` [PATCH v3 2/4] csum-file.h: increase hashfile buffer size Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-11-25 12:14       ` t4216-log-bloom.sh fails with -v (but not --verbose-log) Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-26  4:08         ` Jeff King
2021-11-29 13:49           ` Derrick Stolee
2021-05-18 18:32     ` [PATCH v3 3/4] read-cache: use hashfile instead of git_hash_ctx Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2021-05-18 18:32     ` [PATCH v3 4/4] read-cache: delete unused hashing methods Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YKNtUKIHoCCOMYmn@coredump.intra.peff.net \
    --to=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=derrickstolee@github.com \
    --cc=dstolee@microsoft.com \
    --cc=git@jeffhostetler.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=stolee@gmail.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] csum-file.h: increase hashfile buffer size' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is 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).