path: root/builtin/cat-file.c
diff options
authorJeff King <>2016-08-11 09:26:57 (GMT)
committerJunio C Hamano <>2016-08-11 17:44:23 (GMT)
commitc9af708b1a5a92cbde2a0c9a75b13530f792ac84 (patch)
tree4412f1ceec8a177910386b29fc152b804a93b1b3 /builtin/cat-file.c
parent4cf2143e02993440d6661ddccbd896bee7756c02 (diff)
pack-objects: use mru list when iterating over packs
In the original implementation of want_object_in_pack(), we always looked for the object in every pack, so the order did not matter for performance. As of the last few patches, however, we can now often break out of the loop early after finding the first instance, and avoid looking in the other packs at all. In this case, pack order can make a big difference, because we'd like to find the objects by looking at as few packs as possible. This patch switches us to the same packed_git_mru list that is now used by normal object lookups. Here are timings for p5303 on linux.git: Test HEAD^ HEAD ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5303.3: rev-list (1) 31.31(31.07+0.23) 31.28(31.00+0.27) -0.1% 5303.4: repack (1) 40.35(38.84+2.60) 40.53(39.31+2.32) +0.4% 5303.6: rev-list (50) 31.37(31.15+0.21) 31.41(31.16+0.24) +0.1% 5303.7: repack (50) 58.25(68.54+2.03) 47.28(57.66+1.89) -18.8% 5303.9: rev-list (1000) 31.91(31.57+0.33) 31.93(31.64+0.28) +0.1% 5303.10: repack (1000) 304.80(376.00+3.92) 87.21(159.54+2.84) -71.4% The rev-list numbers are unchanged, which makes sense (they are not exercising this code at all). The 50- and 1000-pack repack cases show considerable improvement. The single-pack repack case doesn't, of course; there's nothing to improve. In fact, it gives us a baseline for how fast we could possibly go. You can see that though rev-list can approach the single-pack case even with 1000 packs, repack doesn't. The reason is simple: the loop we are optimizing is only part of what the repack is doing. After the "counting" phase, we do delta compression, which is much more expensive when there are multiple packs, because we have fewer deltas we can reuse (you can also see that these numbers come from a multicore machine; the CPU times are much higher than the wall-clock times due to the delta phase). So the good news is that in cases with many packs, we used to be dominated by the "counting" phase, and now we are dominated by the delta compression (which is faster, and which we have already parallelized). Here are similar numbers for git.git: Test HEAD^ HEAD --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5303.3: rev-list (1) 1.55(1.51+0.02) 1.54(1.53+0.00) -0.6% 5303.4: repack (1) 1.82(1.80+0.08) 1.82(1.78+0.09) +0.0% 5303.6: rev-list (50) 1.58(1.57+0.00) 1.58(1.56+0.01) +0.0% 5303.7: repack (50) 2.50(3.12+0.07) 2.31(2.95+0.06) -7.6% 5303.9: rev-list (1000) 2.22(2.20+0.02) 2.23(2.19+0.03) +0.5% 5303.10: repack (1000) 10.47(16.78+0.22) 7.50(13.76+0.22) -28.4% Not as impressive in terms of percentage, but still measurable wins. If you look at the wall-clock time improvements in the 1000-pack case, you can see that linux improved by roughly 10x as many seconds as git. That's because it has roughly 10x as many objects, and we'd expect this improvement to scale linearly with the number of objects (since the number of packs is kept constant). It's just that the "counting" phase is a smaller percentage of the total time spent for a git.git repack, and hence the percentage win is smaller. The implementation itself is a straightforward use of the MRU code. We only bother marking a pack as used when we know that we are able to break early out of the loop, for two reasons: 1. If we can't break out early, it does no good; we have to visit each pack anyway, so we might as well avoid even the minor overhead of managing the cache order. 2. The mru_mark() function reorders the list, which would screw up our traversal. So it is only safe to mark when we are about to break out of the loop. We could record the found pack and mark it after the loop finishes, of course, but that's more complicated and it doesn't buy us anything due to (1). Note that this reordering does have a potential impact on the final pack, as we store only a single "found" pack for each object, even if it is present in multiple packs. In principle, any copy is acceptable, as they all refer to the same content. But in practice, they may differ in whether they are stored as deltas, against which base, etc. This may have an impact on delta reuse, and even the delta search (since we skip pairs that were already in the same pack). It's not clear whether this change of order would hurt or even help average cases, though. The most likely reason to have duplicate objects is from the completion of thin packs (e.g., you have some objects in a "base" pack, then receive several pushes; the packs you receive may be thin on the wire, with deltas that refer to bases outside the pack, but we complete them with duplicate base objects when indexing them). In such a case the current code would always find the thin duplicates (because we currently walk the packs in reverse chronological order). Whereas with this patch, some of those duplicates would be found in the base pack instead. In my tests repacking a real-world case of linux.git with 3600 thin-pack pushes (on top of a large "base" pack), the resulting pack was about 0.04% larger with this patch. On the other hand, because we were more likely to hit the base pack, there were more opportunities for delta reuse, and we had 50,000 fewer objects to examine in the delta search. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <>
Diffstat (limited to 'builtin/cat-file.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions