Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2016, #06; Mon, 28)

[Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>]

On 11/30, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:59:52PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > So I think there is some other chdir(). I'm not sure if there is an easy
> > way to get a backtrace on every call to chdir() in every thread. I'm
> > sure somebody more clever than me could figure out how to make gdb do it
> > automatically, but it might be workable manually. I think the chdir was
> > in the main thread.
> 
> Ah, that turned out to be quite easy. The culprit is probably:
> 
> (gdb) bt
> #0  chdir () at ../sysdeps/unix/syscall-template.S:84
> #1  0x00005555555fe259 in real_path_internal (path=0x5555559f6b30 "su:b/../.git/modules/su:b", die_on_error=1)
>     at abspath.c:84
> #2  0x00005555555fe48a in real_path (path=0x5555559f6b30 "su:b/../.git/modules/su:b") at abspath.c:135
> #3  0x00005555556d09e6 in read_gitfile_gently (path=0x5555559f6ac0 "su:b/.git", return_error_code=0x0)
>     at setup.c:555
> #4  0x00005555556d19cf in resolve_gitdir (suspect=0x5555559f6ac0 "su:b/.git") at setup.c:1021
> #5  0x00005555556e7e34 in is_submodule_populated (path=0x5555559f5ec8 "su:b") at submodule.c:244
> #6  0x00005555555a0f05 in grep_submodule (opt=0x7fffffffd8b0, sha1=0x0, filename=0x5555559f5ec8 "su:b", 
>     path=0x5555559f5ec8 "su:b") at builtin/grep.c:619
> #7  0x00005555555a12ac in grep_cache (opt=0x7fffffffd8b0, pathspec=0x7fffffffd880, cached=0) at builtin/grep.c:700
> #8  0x00005555555a36cb in cmd_grep (argc=0, argv=0x7fffffffdf40, prefix=0x0) at builtin/grep.c:1257
> #9  0x000055555556603b in run_builtin (p=0x5555559b3ad8 <commands+984>, argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffdf40) at git.c:373
> #10 0x00005555555662bc in handle_builtin (argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffdf40) at git.c:572
> #11 0x000055555556641a in run_argv (argcp=0x7fffffffddfc, argv=0x7fffffffddf0) at git.c:630
> #12 0x00005555555665a8 in cmd_main (argc=4, argv=0x7fffffffdf40) at git.c:702
> #13 0x00005555555fde47 in main (argc=7, argv=0x7fffffffdf28) at common-main.c:40
> 
> So is_submodule_populated() needs to take a lock. But what's really
> gross is that the _other_ threads need to lock just to call lstat().
> Presumably it could be done as a reader/writer type of lock where many
> "reader" threads can take the "I need to lstat()" lock simultaneously,
> but block when an "I'm going to chdir()" writer holds it.
> 
> -Peff

Oh interesting, I wonder if there is a way to not have to perform a
chdir since taking a lock to lstat wouldn't be ideal.

Thanks for helping out with this!

-- 
Brandon Williams