Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] index-pack: remove redundant child field

[Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>]

On 2019.10.17 13:17, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> @@ -380,27 +378,37 @@ static void free_base_data(struct base_data *c)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -static void prune_base_data(struct base_data *retain)
> +static void prune_base_data(struct base_data *youngest_child)
>  {
>  	struct base_data *b;
>  	struct thread_local *data = get_thread_data();
> -	for (b = data->base_cache;
> -	     data->base_cache_used > delta_base_cache_limit && b;
> -	     b = b->child) {
> -		if (b->data && b != retain)
> -			free_base_data(b);
> +	struct base_data **ancestry = NULL;
> +	size_t nr = 0, alloc = 0;
> +	ssize_t i;
> +
> +	if (data->base_cache_used <= delta_base_cache_limit)
> +		return;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Free all ancestors of youngest_child until we have enough space,
> +	 * starting with the oldest. (We cannot free youngest_child itself.)
> +	 */
> +	for (b = youngest_child->base; b != NULL; b = b->base) {
> +		ALLOC_GROW(ancestry, nr + 1, alloc);
> +		ancestry[nr++] = b;
>  	}
> +	for (i = nr - 1;
> +	     i >= 0 && data->base_cache_used > delta_base_cache_limit;
> +	     i--) {
> +		if (ancestry[i]->data)
> +			free_base_data(ancestry[i]);
> +	}
> +	free(ancestry);
>  }

I had a small complaint that we're allocating new memory in a function
where we are trying to free up space, but in practice it probably
doesn't matter. And this is removed in a later patch anyway.