Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:
> A little bit more..
>
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> +static void ce_queue_push(struct cache_entry **head,
>> + struct cache_entry **tail,
>> + struct cache_entry *ce)
>> +{
>> + if (!*head) {
>> + *head = *tail = ce;
>> + (*tail)->next = NULL;
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + (*tail)->next = ce;
>> + ce->next = NULL;
>> + *tail = (*tail)->next;
>
> No no no. "next" is for name-hash.c don't "reuse" it here. And I don't
> think you really need to maintain a linked list of cache_entries by
> the way. More on read_entries comments below..
You're right, I don't need it for the reading code. I do need to keep a
list of cache-entries for writing though, where a linked list is best
suited for the task. I'll use a next_ce pointer for that.
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct cache_entry *ce_queue_pop(struct cache_entry **head)
>> +{
>> + struct cache_entry *ce;
>> +
>> + ce = *head;
>> + *head = (*head)->next;
>> + return ce;
>> +}
>
> Same as ce_queue_push.
>
>> +static int read_entries(struct index_state *istate, struct directory_entry
>> **de,
>> + unsigned int *entry_offset, void **mmap,
>> + unsigned long mmap_size, unsigned int *nr,
>> + unsigned int *foffsetblock)
>> +{
>> + struct cache_entry *head = NULL, *tail = NULL;
>> + struct conflict_entry *conflict_queue;
>> + struct cache_entry *ce;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + conflict_queue = NULL;
>> + if (read_conflicts(&conflict_queue, *de, mmap, mmap_size) < 0)
>> + return -1;
>> + for (i = 0; i < (*de)->de_nfiles; i++) {
>> + if (read_entry(&ce,
>> + *de,
>> + entry_offset,
>> + mmap,
>> + mmap_size,
>> + foffsetblock) < 0)
>> + return -1;
>> + ce_queue_push(&head, &tail, ce);
>> + *foffsetblock += 4;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Add the conflicted entries at the end of the index file
>> + * to the in memory format
>> + */
>> + if (conflict_queue &&
>> + (conflict_queue->entries->flags & CONFLICT_CONFLICTED)
>> != 0 &&
>> + !cache_name_compare(conflict_queue->name,
>> conflict_queue->namelen,
>> + ce->name, ce_namelen(ce))) {
>> + struct conflict_part *cp;
>> + cp = conflict_queue->entries;
>> + cp = cp->next;
>> + while (cp) {
>> + ce = convert_conflict_part(cp,
>> + conflict_queue->name,
>> + conflict_queue->namelen);
>> + ce_queue_push(&head, &tail, ce);
>> + conflict_part_head_remove(&cp);
>> + }
>> + conflict_entry_head_remove(&conflict_queue);
>> + }
>
> I start to wonder if separating staged entries is a good idea. It
> seems to make the code more complicated. The good point about conflict
> section at the end of the file is you can just truncate() it out.
> Another way is putting staged entries in fileentries, sorted
> alphabetically then by stage number, and a flag indicating if the
> entry is valid. When you remove resolve an entry, just set the flag to
> invalid (partial write), so that read code will skip it.
>
> I think this approach is reasonably cheap (unless there are a lot of
> conflicts) and it simplifies this piece of code. truncate() may be
> overrated anyway. In my experience, I "git add <path>" as soon as I
> resolve <path> (so that "git diff" shrinks). One entry at a time, one
> index write at a time. I don't think I ever resolve everything then
> "git add -u .", which is where truncate() shines because staged
> entries are removed all at once. We should optimize for one file
> resolution at a time, imo.
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + *de = (*de)->next;
>> +
>> + while (head) {
>> + if (*de != NULL
>> + && strcmp(head->name, (*de)->pathname) > 0) {
>> + read_entries(istate,
>> + de,
>> + entry_offset,
>> + mmap,
>> + mmap_size,
>> + nr,
>> + foffsetblock);
>> + } else {
>> + ce = ce_queue_pop(&head);
>> + set_index_entry(istate, *nr, ce);
>> + (*nr)++;
>> + ce->next = NULL;
>> + }
>
> In this loop, you do some sort of merge sort combining a list of
> sorted files and a list of sorted directories (which will be expanded
> to bunches of files by the recursive read_entries). strcmp() does two
> things. Assume we're in directory 'a', it makes sure that subdirectory
> 'a/b' is only inserted after file 'a/a' is inserted to maintain index
> sort order. It also makes sure that 'de' of an outside directory 'b'
> will not be expanded here. strcmp will be called for every file,
> checking _full_ path. Sounds expensive.
>
> If you maintain two pointers first_subdir and next_sibling in "de" as
> in my previous mail, you know "de" 'b' is out without string
> comparison (de->next_sibling would be NULL). With that, the purpose of
> strcmp is simply making sure that 'a/b' is inserted after 'a/a'.
> Because we know all possible "de" is a subdirectory of 'a', we don't
> need to compare the prefix 'a/'. We still need to strcmp on every
> file, but we only need to compare the file name, not the leading
> directory anymore. Cheaper.
>
> Going further, I wonder if we could eliminate strcmp completely. We
> could store dummy entries in fileentries to mark the positions of the
> subdirectories. When we encounter a dummy entry, we call
> read_entries() instead of set_index_entry.
I've tried implementing both versions with the internal tree structure,
see below for timings.
simpleapi is the code that was posted to the list, HEAD uses a
tree-structure for the directories internally, and replaces strcmp with
cache_name_compare and leaves out the prefix. This tree uses dummy
entries for the sub-directories.
Dummy entries are single NUL-bytes mixed with the cache-entries, which
should give optimal performance. I haven't thought much about
corruption of the index, but I don't think we would need any additional
crc checksums or similar.
The performance advantage seems very slim to none when using the dummy
entries to avoid the comparison though, so I don't think it makes sense
to make the index more complicated for a very small speed-up.
Test simpleapi HEAD
this tree
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003.2: v[23]: update-index 3.22(2.61+0.58) 3.20(2.56+0.61)
-0.6% 3.22(2.67+0.53) +0.0%
0003.3: v[23]: grep nonexistent -- subdir 1.65(1.36+0.27) 1.65(1.34+0.30)
+0.0% 1.67(1.34+0.31) +1.2%
0003.4: v[23]: ls-files -- subdir 1.50(1.20+0.29) 1.54(1.18+0.34)
+2.7% 1.53(1.22+0.30) +2.0%
0003.6: v4: update-index 2.69(2.28+0.39) 2.70(2.21+0.47)
+0.4% 2.70(2.27+0.41) +0.4%
0003.7: v4: grep nonexistent -- subdir 1.33(0.98+0.34) 1.36(1.01+0.33)
+2.3% 1.34(1.03+0.30) +0.8%
0003.8: v4: ls-files -- subdir 1.21(0.86+0.33) 1.23(0.91+0.30)
+1.7% 1.22(0.90+0.30) +0.8%
0003.10: v5: update-index 2.12(1.58+0.52) 2.20(1.67+0.52)
+3.8% 2.19(1.66+0.51) +3.3%
0003.11: v5: ls-files 1.57(1.21+0.34) 1.55(1.20+0.33)
-1.3% 1.52(1.21+0.29) -3.2%
0003.12: v5: grep nonexistent -- subdir 0.08(0.06+0.01) 0.07(0.04+0.02)
-12.5% 0.07(0.04+0.02) -12.5%
0003.13: v5: ls-files -- subdir 0.07(0.04+0.01) 0.06(0.05+0.00)
-14.3% 0.07(0.05+0.01) +0.0%
> If you merge the "read_entry" for loop in this while loop, you don't
> need to maintain a linked list of ce to pop out one by one here.
Makes sense, I'll do that.
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
> --
> Duy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
