[PATCH 0/2] commit-graph: fix topo_levels slab propagation regression

[PATCH 0/2] commit-graph: fix topo_levels slab propagation regression

[Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget]

When fetch.writeCommitGraph is enabled (or git maintenance runs after
fetch), an incremental commit-graph write computes generation numbers for
the newly added commits. For commits already in the graph, their topo levels
should be read from the existing layers, making the DFS proportional to the
number of new commits.

199d452758 (commit-graph: return the prepared commit graph from
prepare_commit_graph(), 2025-04-07), part of the ps/commit-graph-via-source
series [1], refactored the loop that propagates the topo_levels slab to each
layer of the commit-graph chain. The original code used a single variable
that advanced through the chain:

while (g) {
    g->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
    g = g->base_graph;
}


The refactored code introduced a separate iteration variable but did not
update the loop body to match:

for (struct commit_graph *chain = g; chain; chain = chain->base_graph)
    g->topo_levels = &topo_levels;


This always assigns to the topmost layer instead of the current one. The
other loops in the same refactoring all correctly use chain in their bodies:

for (struct commit_graph *chain = g; chain; chain = chain->base_graph)
    ctx.num_commit_graphs_before++;

for (struct commit_graph *chain = g; chain; chain = chain->base_graph)
    ctx.commit_graph_filenames_before[--i] = xstrdup(chain->filename);


With only the topmost layer having topo_levels set, fill_commit_graph_info()
cannot store topo levels for commits parsed from lower layers.
compute_reachable_generation_numbers() then sees GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO for
those commits and re-walks their entire ancestry.

On a large repo with a 4-layer split commit-graph, the cost of a single
incremental commit-graph write drops from 4133ms to 233ms after the fix,
which directly impacts every git fetch when commit-graph maintenance is
enabled.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/git/aMNTELw0Wk8jWoPc@nand.local/T/#mb55b5f0e1ccf82d969ac1d8144c56ecf87b833e8

Kristofer Karlsson (2):
  commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS
  commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

 commit-graph.c                |  7 ++++++-
 t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)


base-commit: e9019fcafe0040228b8631c30f97ae1adb61bcdc
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-2170%2Fspkrka%2Fkrka%2Ffix-topo-levels-slab-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-2170/spkrka/krka/fix-topo-levels-slab-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/2170
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget]

From: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>

Add a step counter and trace2_data_intmax call to
compute_reachable_generation_numbers() to make the cost of
the generation number DFS observable.  This exposes a
regression introduced in 199d452758 (commit-graph: fix
"filling in" topological levels, 2025-04-07) where
incremental commit-graph writes re-walk the entire commit
ancestry instead of reading topo levels from lower graph
layers.

Add a test that demonstrates the problem: with a two-layer
split commit-graph, writing a new incremental layer for a
commit whose parent is in the base layer walks all the way
down to the root (7 steps for 5 base commits) instead of
reading the existing topo level and stopping immediately
(1 step).

Signed-off-by: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
---
 commit-graph.c                |  5 +++++
 t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)

diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
index 801471a098..4e39a048c4 100644
--- a/commit-graph.c
+++ b/commit-graph.c
@@ -1653,6 +1653,7 @@ static void compute_reachable_generation_numbers(
 {
 	int i;
 	struct commit_list *list = NULL;
+	intmax_t steps = 0;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < info->commits->nr; i++) {
 		struct commit *c = info->commits->items[i];
@@ -1671,6 +1672,7 @@ static void compute_reachable_generation_numbers(
 			int all_parents_computed = 1;
 			timestamp_t max_gen = 0;
 
+			steps++;
 			for (parent = current->parents; parent; parent = parent->next) {
 				repo_parse_commit(info->r, parent->item);
 				gen = info->get_generation(parent->item, info->data);
@@ -1694,6 +1696,9 @@ static void compute_reachable_generation_numbers(
 			}
 		}
 	}
+
+	trace2_data_intmax("commit-graph", info->r,
+			   "generation-dfs-steps", steps);
 }
 
 static timestamp_t get_topo_level(struct commit *c, void *data)
diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
index 49a057cc2e..f9c57760f4 100755
--- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
+++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
@@ -718,6 +718,34 @@ test_expect_success 'write generation data chunk when commit-graph chain is repl
 	)
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
+	git init topo-from-lower &&
+	(
+		cd topo-from-lower &&
+
+		for i in $(test_seq 5)
+		do
+			test_commit base-$i || return 1
+		done &&
+		git commit-graph write --reachable &&
+
+		test_commit extra &&
+		git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
+
+		git checkout base-3 &&
+		test_commit new-branch &&
+
+		GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/trace.txt" \
+			git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
+
+		# BUG: topo levels from lower graph layers are not
+		# propagated, so the DFS re-walks from base-3 down to
+		# the root (7 steps) instead of reading topo levels
+		# from the existing graph (1 step).
+		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 7 <trace.txt
+	)
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'temporary graph layer is discarded upon failure' '
 	git init layer-discard &&
 	(
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget]

From: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>

Fix a regression introduced in 199d452758 (commit-graph: fix
"filling in" topological levels, 2025-04-07) where the loop
propagating the topo_levels slab to each layer of the
commit-graph chain always assigned to `g->topo_levels`
(the topmost layer) instead of `chain->topo_levels` (the
current iteration variable).

This meant only the topmost layer had its topo_levels pointer
set.  When compute_reachable_generation_numbers() ran for an
incremental write, commits parsed from lower layers had their
topo levels left at zero in the slab, since
fill_commit_graph_info() could not store them without the
pointer.  The DFS then re-walked the entire commit ancestry
instead of stopping at commits with known levels.

On a repository with 2.78M commits and a multi-layer split
commit-graph, this caused a single incremental commit-graph
write to spend ~3.7 seconds in the generation DFS instead of
microseconds.

Signed-off-by: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
---
 commit-graph.c                | 2 +-
 t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh | 6 +-----
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
index 4e39a048c4..c2a711cceb 100644
--- a/commit-graph.c
+++ b/commit-graph.c
@@ -2610,7 +2610,7 @@ int write_commit_graph(struct odb_source *source,
 
 	g = prepare_commit_graph(ctx.r);
 	for (struct commit_graph *chain = g; chain; chain = chain->base_graph)
-		g->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
+		chain->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
 
 	if (flags & COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_BLOOM_FILTERS)
 		ctx.changed_paths = 1;
diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
index f9c57760f4..9e5ab7dbd0 100755
--- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
+++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
@@ -738,11 +738,7 @@ test_expect_success 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
 		GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/trace.txt" \
 			git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
 
-		# BUG: topo levels from lower graph layers are not
-		# propagated, so the DFS re-walks from base-3 down to
-		# the root (7 steps) instead of reading topo levels
-		# from the existing graph (1 step).
-		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 7 <trace.txt
+		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt
 	)
 '
 
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Taylor Blau]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:59:42AM +0000, Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
>
> Add a step counter and trace2_data_intmax call to
> compute_reachable_generation_numbers() to make the cost of
> the generation number DFS observable.  This exposes a
> regression introduced in 199d452758 (commit-graph: fix
> "filling in" topological levels, 2025-04-07) where
> incremental commit-graph writes re-walk the entire commit
> ancestry instead of reading topo levels from lower graph
> layers.

Makes sense.

> Add a test that demonstrates the problem: with a two-layer
> split commit-graph, writing a new incremental layer for a
> commit whose parent is in the base layer walks all the way
> down to the root (7 steps for 5 base commits) instead of
> reading the existing topo level and stopping immediately
> (1 step).

This paragraph only describes verbatim what is already included in the
patch. I think we could easily do without it, but I do not feel so
strongly about it.

> Signed-off-by: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
> ---
>  commit-graph.c                |  5 +++++
>  t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
> index 801471a098..4e39a048c4 100644
> --- a/commit-graph.c
> +++ b/commit-graph.c
> @@ -1653,6 +1653,7 @@ static void compute_reachable_generation_numbers(
>  {
>  	int i;
>  	struct commit_list *list = NULL;
> +	intmax_t steps = 0;

Any reason that this should be signed? Obviously in practice, I don't
think we're going to wrap around with a greater-than-INT_MAX number of
commits here, but perhaps we would at the very least prefer uintmax_t.

I guess trace2 only has a data_intmax() function, so perhaps the point
is moot. Regardless, it seems that we would want to have a convenience
wrapper to be able to print out unsigned integer values which are
otherwise un-representable as signed integers.

That is outside the scope of your patch, though, so what you have
below here is fine in my opinion.

> +		# BUG: topo levels from lower graph layers are not
> +		# propagated, so the DFS re-walks from base-3 down to
> +		# the root (7 steps) instead of reading topo levels
> +		# from the existing graph (1 step).
> +		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 7 <trace.txt

Instead of writing "# BUG ..." and then an incorrect assertion, I
would suggest that you write the assertion you expect:

    test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt

, but mark the test as "test_expect_failure".

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Taylor Blau]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:59:43AM +0000, Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget wrote:
> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
> index 4e39a048c4..c2a711cceb 100644
> --- a/commit-graph.c
> +++ b/commit-graph.c
> @@ -2610,7 +2610,7 @@ int write_commit_graph(struct odb_source *source,
>
>  	g = prepare_commit_graph(ctx.r);
>  	for (struct commit_graph *chain = g; chain; chain = chain->base_graph)
> -		g->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
> +		chain->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
>
>  	if (flags & COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_BLOOM_FILTERS)
>  		ctx.changed_paths = 1;

Looks obviously good.

I think that there is a more permanent fix, though, which would have not
allowed this bug to evade both its author, and reviewer (me). I *think*
that we may clear up some scoping issues if we removed g->topo_levels
entirely, and instead stored it in the write_commit_graph_ctx struct.

I haven't thought through the implications of doing so completely, so
it's entirely possible that this idea is bunk for some other reason. But
it was the first thing that came to mind, and so feels worth exploring
to see if it might have prevented something like this from ever
happening in the first place.

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Kristofer Karlsson]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 15:49, Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote:
>
> >       g = prepare_commit_graph(ctx.r);
> >       for (struct commit_graph *chain = g; chain; chain = chain->base_graph)
> > -             g->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
> > +             chain->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
> >
>
> Looks obviously good.
>
> I think that there is a more permanent fix, though, which would have not
> allowed this bug to evade both its author, and reviewer (me). I *think*
> that we may clear up some scoping issues if we removed g->topo_levels
> entirely, and instead stored it in the write_commit_graph_ctx struct.

I think that sounds feasible, but it would be a larger change.
I wanted to keep this fix minimal and restore
the code to match the pre-regression state. I can maybe look
into a refactoring as followup (or help review someone elses
refactoring?), though I would also be happy just to get that
extra 4 seconds back on every fetch for now :)

Thanks,
Kristofer

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Kristofer Karlsson]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 15:47, Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote:
>
> > Add a test that demonstrates the problem: with a two-layer
> > split commit-graph, writing a new incremental layer for a
> > commit whose parent is in the base layer walks all the way
> > down to the root (7 steps for 5 base commits) instead of
> > reading the existing topo level and stopping immediately
> > (1 step).
>
> This paragraph only describes verbatim what is already included in the
> patch. I think we could easily do without it, but I do not feel so
> strongly about it.

I also don't feel strongly about it, I could remove it entirely.

> > +     intmax_t steps = 0;
>
> Any reason that this should be signed? Obviously in practice, I don't
> think we're going to wrap around with a greater-than-INT_MAX number of
> commits here, but perhaps we would at the very least prefer uintmax_t.
>
> I guess trace2 only has a data_intmax() function, so perhaps the point
> is moot. Regardless, it seems that we would want to have a convenience
> wrapper to be able to print out unsigned integer values which are
> otherwise un-representable as signed integers.

Yes, my only rationale here was to match the type that
trace2_data_intmax expects - and as you say, it's very
unlikely that we'll need to use all bits anyway, and since
this is only used for testing and debugging, and overflows
would be noticed that way and would not affect general
correctness.

> Instead of writing "# BUG ..." and then an incorrect assertion, I
> would suggest that you write the assertion you expect:
>
>     test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt
>
> , but mark the test as "test_expect_failure".

I started with this actually and then changed my mind in order
to demonstrate exactly how the counter changed, not just that it
changed from failure to success. But I'd be happy to change this
too if needed - it would effectively reduce the second commit to
just the bugfix line and switching from test_expect_failure
to test_expect_success.

Thanks,
Kristofer

Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Kristofer Karlsson]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 15:49, Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote:
>
> I think that there is a more permanent fix, though, which would have not
> allowed this bug to evade both its author, and reviewer (me). I *think*
> that we may clear up some scoping issues if we removed g->topo_levels
> entirely, and instead stored it in the write_commit_graph_ctx struct.
>
> I haven't thought through the implications of doing so completely, so
> it's entirely possible that this idea is bunk for some other reason. But
> it was the first thing that came to mind, and so feels worth exploring
> to see if it might have prevented something like this from ever
> happening in the first place.
>

I looked into the structural change you suggested and I think
it's doable, though not quite as simple as just moving
it into ctx (since fill_commit_graph_info() doesn't have ctx).

I found three approaches:

(a) Thread topo_levels through the call chain. This would
affect:
- fill_commit_graph_info()
- fill_commit_in_graph()
- parse_commit_in_graph_one()
- parse_commit_in_graph()
- load_commit_graph_info()
- lookup_commit_in_graph().

This is the most direct approach, but it touches many functions
and some callers would need to pass in NULL which makes it a bit
noisy.

(b) Move topo_levels to struct object_database. Since
fill_commit_graph_info() can already reach the odb via
g->odb_source->odb, no signature changes are needed.
The write side becomes a single assignment:

    ctx.r->objects->topo_levels = &topo_levels;

and cleanup becomes:

    ctx.r->objects->topo_levels = NULL;

No chain walk needed and the diff is fairly small.
I am not sure about the semantics of it though -- should the odb
have a reference to topo_levels?

(c) Introduce a struct for the chain as a whole, separating it from
the per-layer struct commit_graph. Right now struct commit_graph
represents a single layer but also serves as the chain head, so
chain-wide state like topo_levels gets duplicated on every layer
(only logically -- the actual overhead is still small).
A dedicated chain struct could own topo_levels and the linked list
of layers. IMO this is the cleanest model but a larger refactoring.

I have a prototype of (b) that compiles and passes the test suite.

For now though, I think the minimal bugfix is the right thing to do.

Thanks,
Kristofer

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Junio C Hamano]

"Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> From: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
>
> Add a step counter and trace2_data_intmax call to
> compute_reachable_generation_numbers() to make the cost of
> the generation number DFS observable.  This exposes a
> regression introduced in 199d452758 (commit-graph: fix
> "filling in" topological levels, 2025-04-07) where

Where did "fix filling in" came from?  Are you blaming

    199d452758 (commit-graph: return the prepared commit graph from
    `prepare_commit_graph()`, 2025-09-04)

or something else that happend in April that year?

> incremental commit-graph writes re-walk the entire commit
> ancestry instead of reading topo levels from lower graph
> layers.

> Add a test that demonstrates the problem: with a two-layer
> split commit-graph, writing a new incremental layer for a
> commit whose parent is in the base layer walks all the way
> down to the root (7 steps for 5 base commits) instead of
> reading the existing topo level and stopping immediately
> (1 step).

OK.  I expect that [2/2] would update this exact test to demonstrate
that with code updated in [2/2] the extra walk will no longer happen.

> Signed-off-by: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
> ---
>  commit-graph.c                |  5 +++++
>  t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
> index 801471a098..4e39a048c4 100644
> --- a/commit-graph.c
> +++ b/commit-graph.c
> @@ -1653,6 +1653,7 @@ static void compute_reachable_generation_numbers(
>  {
>  	int i;
>  	struct commit_list *list = NULL;
> +	intmax_t steps = 0;
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < info->commits->nr; i++) {
>  		struct commit *c = info->commits->items[i];
> @@ -1671,6 +1672,7 @@ static void compute_reachable_generation_numbers(
>  			int all_parents_computed = 1;
>  			timestamp_t max_gen = 0;
>  
> +			steps++;
>  			for (parent = current->parents; parent; parent = parent->next) {
>  				repo_parse_commit(info->r, parent->item);
>  				gen = info->get_generation(parent->item, info->data);
> @@ -1694,6 +1696,9 @@ static void compute_reachable_generation_numbers(
>  			}
>  		}
>  	}
> +
> +	trace2_data_intmax("commit-graph", info->r,
> +			   "generation-dfs-steps", steps);
>  }

Pretty-much trivial addition of a trace element.

> diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
> index 49a057cc2e..f9c57760f4 100755
> --- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
> +++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
> @@ -718,6 +718,34 @@ test_expect_success 'write generation data chunk when commit-graph chain is repl
>  	)
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
> +	git init topo-from-lower &&
> +	(
> +		cd topo-from-lower &&
> +
> +		for i in $(test_seq 5)
> +		do
> +			test_commit base-$i || return 1
> +		done &&
> +		git commit-graph write --reachable &&
> +
> +		test_commit extra &&
> +		git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
> +
> +		git checkout base-3 &&
> +		test_commit new-branch &&
> +
> +		GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/trace.txt" \
> +			git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
> +
> +		# BUG: topo levels from lower graph layers are not
> +		# propagated, so the DFS re-walks from base-3 down to
> +		# the root (7 steps) instead of reading topo levels
> +		# from the existing graph (1 step).
> +		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 7 <trace.txt
> +	)
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'temporary graph layer is discarded upon failure' '
>  	git init layer-discard &&
>  	(

Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Junio C Hamano]

"Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> From: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
>
> Fix a regression introduced in 199d452758 (commit-graph: fix
> "filling in" topological levels, 2025-04-07) where the loop

I guess the same comment from [1/2] applies.  We might be chasing
ghosts here.  Is that elusive commit a total hallucination?

> On a repository with 2.78M commits and a multi-layer split
> commit-graph, this caused a single incremental commit-graph
> write to spend ~3.7 seconds in the generation DFS instead of
> microseconds.

Nice.

> Signed-off-by: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
> ---
>  commit-graph.c                | 2 +-
>  t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh | 6 +-----
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
> index 4e39a048c4..c2a711cceb 100644
> --- a/commit-graph.c
> +++ b/commit-graph.c
> @@ -2610,7 +2610,7 @@ int write_commit_graph(struct odb_source *source,
>  
>  	g = prepare_commit_graph(ctx.r);
>  	for (struct commit_graph *chain = g; chain; chain = chain->base_graph)
> -		g->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
> +		chain->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
>  
>  	if (flags & COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_BLOOM_FILTERS)
>  		ctx.changed_paths = 1;
> diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
> index f9c57760f4..9e5ab7dbd0 100755
> --- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
> +++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
> @@ -738,11 +738,7 @@ test_expect_success 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
>  		GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/trace.txt" \
>  			git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
>  
> -		# BUG: topo levels from lower graph layers are not
> -		# propagated, so the DFS re-walks from base-3 down to
> -		# the root (7 steps) instead of reading topo levels
> -		# from the existing graph (1 step).
> -		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 7 <trace.txt
> +		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt
>  	)
>  '

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Kristofer Karlsson]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 18:56, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add a step counter and trace2_data_intmax call to
> > compute_reachable_generation_numbers() to make the cost of
> > the generation number DFS observable.  This exposes a
> > regression introduced in 199d452758 (commit-graph: fix
> > "filling in" topological levels, 2025-04-07) where
>
> Where did "fix filling in" came from?  Are you blaming
>
>     199d452758 (commit-graph: return the prepared commit graph from
>     `prepare_commit_graph()`, 2025-09-04)
>
> or something else that happend in April that year?

Hm, I actually don't remember that exact text, it must have been
an oversight during editing back and forth and I missed it in
my local review -- the commit oid is correct though, that is
the one I was referring to. I will clean this up and shrink it down.

I did not mean April though, but September 4th. I was using
the ISO 8601 date format out of habit.

> OK.  I expect that [2/2] would update this exact test to demonstrate
> that with code updated in [2/2] the extra walk will no longer happen.

Yes, I first considered doing this as a single commit, but
I figured it would be easier to reason about the fix if the
problem was identified before-hand.

Thanks,
Kristofer

Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Kristofer Karlsson]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 19:00, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Fix a regression introduced in 199d452758 (commit-graph: fix
> > "filling in" topological levels, 2025-04-07) where the loop
>
> I guess the same comment from [1/2] applies.  We might be chasing
> ghosts here.  Is that elusive commit a total hallucination?

Oops! The commit exists but the date there is indeed wrong.
Will fix (or just remove it, I am starting to regret trying to make
the commit reference too detailed in the first place).

Thanks,
Kristofer

Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Junio C Hamano]

Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com> writes:

> On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 19:00, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Fix a regression introduced in 199d452758 (commit-graph: fix
>> > "filling in" topological levels, 2025-04-07) where the loop
>>
>> I guess the same comment from [1/2] applies.  We might be chasing
>> ghosts here.  Is that elusive commit a total hallucination?
>
> Oops! The commit exists but the date there is indeed wrong.
> Will fix (or just remove it, I am starting to regret trying to make
> the commit reference too detailed in the first place).

Heh, "git show -s --pretty=reference" would give the right amount of
information without giving leeway to users to decide what level of
detail they want ;-)

Thanks.  Will mark the topic as "Expecting a reroll.".

Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Patrick Steinhardt]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:59:43AM +0000, Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget wrote:
> diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
> index 4e39a048c4..c2a711cceb 100644
> --- a/commit-graph.c
> +++ b/commit-graph.c
> @@ -2610,7 +2610,7 @@ int write_commit_graph(struct odb_source *source,
>  
>  	g = prepare_commit_graph(ctx.r);
>  	for (struct commit_graph *chain = g; chain; chain = chain->base_graph)
> -		g->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
> +		chain->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
>  
>  	if (flags & COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_BLOOM_FILTERS)
>  		ctx.changed_paths = 1;

Oops, that's an embarrassing bug indeed. Thanks for finding and fixing
it!

> diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
> index f9c57760f4..9e5ab7dbd0 100755
> --- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
> +++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
> @@ -738,11 +738,7 @@ test_expect_success 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
>  		GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/trace.txt" \
>  			git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
>  
> -		# BUG: topo levels from lower graph layers are not
> -		# propagated, so the DFS re-walks from base-3 down to
> -		# the root (7 steps) instead of reading topo levels
> -		# from the existing graph (1 step).
> -		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 7 <trace.txt
> +		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt
>  	)
>  '

Makes sense.

Patrick

[PATCH v2 0/2] commit-graph: fix topo_levels slab propagation regression

[Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget]

When fetch.writeCommitGraph is enabled (or git maintenance runs after
fetch), an incremental commit-graph write computes generation numbers for
the newly added commits. For commits already in the graph, their topo levels
should be read from the existing layers, making the DFS proportional to the
number of new commits.

199d452758 (commit-graph: return the prepared commit graph from
prepare_commit_graph(), 2025-09-04), part of the ps/commit-graph-via-source
series [1], refactored the loop that propagates the topo_levels slab to each
layer of the commit-graph chain. The original code used a single variable
that advanced through the chain:

while (g) {
    g->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
    g = g->base_graph;
}


The refactored code introduced a separate iteration variable but did not
update the loop body to match:

for (struct commit_graph *chain = g; chain; chain = chain->base_graph)
    g->topo_levels = &topo_levels;


This always assigns to the topmost layer instead of the current one. Commits
from lower layers appear to have no generation numbers, so the DFS re-walks
the entire ancestry.

On a repo with a multi-layer split commit-graph, an incremental commit-graph
write triggered by git fetch drops from ~3.5 seconds to ~0.2 seconds after
the fix.

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/git/aMNTELw0Wk8jWoPc@nand.local/T/#mb55b5f0e1ccf82d969ac1d8144c56ecf87b833e8

Changes since v1:

 * Fixed wrong commit title and date in the reference (Junio, Taylor).
 * use test_expect_failure with the correct assertion instead of a # BUG
   comment (Taylor).
 * Simplified commit messages.

Kristofer Karlsson (2):
  commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS
  commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

 commit-graph.c                |  7 ++++++-
 t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)


base-commit: f85a7e662054a7b0d9070e432508831afa214b47
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-2170%2Fspkrka%2Fkrka%2Ffix-topo-levels-slab-v2
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-2170/spkrka/krka/fix-topo-levels-slab-v2
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/2170

Range-diff vs v1:

 1:  b865c2bcff ! 1:  100efa22a9 commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS
     @@ Metadata
       ## Commit message ##
          commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS
      
     -    Add a step counter and trace2_data_intmax call to
     -    compute_reachable_generation_numbers() to make the cost of
     -    the generation number DFS observable.  This exposes a
     -    regression introduced in 199d452758 (commit-graph: fix
     -    "filling in" topological levels, 2025-04-07) where
     -    incremental commit-graph writes re-walk the entire commit
     -    ancestry instead of reading topo levels from lower graph
     -    layers.
     +    Count the number of steps taken in
     +    compute_reachable_generation_numbers() and expose it via
     +    trace2 to make it easier to detect performance regressions.
      
     -    Add a test that demonstrates the problem: with a two-layer
     -    split commit-graph, writing a new incremental layer for a
     -    commit whose parent is in the base layer walks all the way
     -    down to the root (7 steps for 5 base commits) instead of
     -    reading the existing topo level and stopping immediately
     -    (1 step).
     +    Add a failing test for such a regression, introduced in
     +    199d452758 (commit-graph: return the prepared commit graph
     +    from `prepare_commit_graph()`, 2025-09-04), where incremental
     +    commit-graph writes do not see existing generation numbers
     +    from lower graph layers and fall back to walking the full
     +    ancestry.
      
          Signed-off-by: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
      
     @@ t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh: test_expect_success 'write generation data chunk
       	)
       '
       
     -+test_expect_success 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
     ++test_expect_failure 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
      +	git init topo-from-lower &&
      +	(
      +		cd topo-from-lower &&
     @@ t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh: test_expect_success 'write generation data chunk
      +		GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/trace.txt" \
      +			git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
      +
     -+		# BUG: topo levels from lower graph layers are not
     -+		# propagated, so the DFS re-walks from base-3 down to
     -+		# the root (7 steps) instead of reading topo levels
     -+		# from the existing graph (1 step).
     -+		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 7 <trace.txt
     ++		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt
      +	)
      +'
      +
 2:  f9c1482a76 ! 2:  679dd2e392 commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers
     @@ Metadata
       ## Commit message ##
          commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers
      
     -    Fix a regression introduced in 199d452758 (commit-graph: fix
     -    "filling in" topological levels, 2025-04-07) where the loop
     -    propagating the topo_levels slab to each layer of the
     -    commit-graph chain always assigned to `g->topo_levels`
     -    (the topmost layer) instead of `chain->topo_levels` (the
     -    current iteration variable).
     +    The topo_levels slab is only propagated to the topmost graph
     +    layer instead of all layers in the chain.  Commits from lower
     +    layers appear to have no generation numbers, so the DFS
     +    re-walks the entire ancestry.
      
     -    This meant only the topmost layer had its topo_levels pointer
     -    set.  When compute_reachable_generation_numbers() ran for an
     -    incremental write, commits parsed from lower layers had their
     -    topo levels left at zero in the slab, since
     -    fill_commit_graph_info() could not store them without the
     -    pointer.  The DFS then re-walked the entire commit ancestry
     -    instead of stopping at commits with known levels.
     -
     -    On a repository with 2.78M commits and a multi-layer split
     -    commit-graph, this caused a single incremental commit-graph
     -    write to spend ~3.7 seconds in the generation DFS instead of
     -    microseconds.
     +    Fix by making topo_levels visible to all layers, not just
     +    the first one.
      
          Signed-off-by: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
      
     @@ commit-graph.c: int write_commit_graph(struct odb_source *source,
       		ctx.changed_paths = 1;
      
       ## t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh ##
     -@@ t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh: test_expect_success 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
     - 		GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/trace.txt" \
     - 			git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
     - 
     --		# BUG: topo levels from lower graph layers are not
     --		# propagated, so the DFS re-walks from base-3 down to
     --		# the root (7 steps) instead of reading topo levels
     --		# from the existing graph (1 step).
     --		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 7 <trace.txt
     -+		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt
     +@@ t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh: test_expect_success 'write generation data chunk when commit-graph chain is repl
       	)
       '
       
     +-test_expect_failure 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
     ++test_expect_success 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
     + 	git init topo-from-lower &&
     + 	(
     + 		cd topo-from-lower &&

-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v2 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget]

From: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>

Count the number of steps taken in
compute_reachable_generation_numbers() and expose it via
trace2 to make it easier to detect performance regressions.

Add a failing test for such a regression, introduced in
199d452758 (commit-graph: return the prepared commit graph
from `prepare_commit_graph()`, 2025-09-04), where incremental
commit-graph writes do not see existing generation numbers
from lower graph layers and fall back to walking the full
ancestry.

Signed-off-by: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
---
 commit-graph.c                |  5 +++++
 t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)

diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
index c6d9c5c740..702ba9731b 100644
--- a/commit-graph.c
+++ b/commit-graph.c
@@ -1653,6 +1653,7 @@ static void compute_reachable_generation_numbers(
 {
 	int i;
 	struct commit_list *list = NULL;
+	intmax_t steps = 0;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < info->commits->nr; i++) {
 		struct commit *c = info->commits->items[i];
@@ -1671,6 +1672,7 @@ static void compute_reachable_generation_numbers(
 			int all_parents_computed = 1;
 			timestamp_t max_gen = 0;
 
+			steps++;
 			for (parent = current->parents; parent; parent = parent->next) {
 				repo_parse_commit(info->r, parent->item);
 				gen = info->get_generation(parent->item, info->data);
@@ -1694,6 +1696,9 @@ static void compute_reachable_generation_numbers(
 			}
 		}
 	}
+
+	trace2_data_intmax("commit-graph", info->r,
+			   "generation-dfs-steps", steps);
 }
 
 static timestamp_t get_topo_level(struct commit *c, void *data)
diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
index 49a057cc2e..b41331e3dd 100755
--- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
+++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
@@ -718,6 +718,30 @@ test_expect_success 'write generation data chunk when commit-graph chain is repl
 	)
 '
 
+test_expect_failure 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
+	git init topo-from-lower &&
+	(
+		cd topo-from-lower &&
+
+		for i in $(test_seq 5)
+		do
+			test_commit base-$i || return 1
+		done &&
+		git commit-graph write --reachable &&
+
+		test_commit extra &&
+		git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
+
+		git checkout base-3 &&
+		test_commit new-branch &&
+
+		GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/trace.txt" \
+			git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge &&
+
+		test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt
+	)
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'temporary graph layer is discarded upon failure' '
 	git init layer-discard &&
 	(
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH v2 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget]

From: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>

The topo_levels slab is only propagated to the topmost graph
layer instead of all layers in the chain.  Commits from lower
layers appear to have no generation numbers, so the DFS
re-walks the entire ancestry.

Fix by making topo_levels visible to all layers, not just
the first one.

Signed-off-by: Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com>
---
 commit-graph.c                | 2 +-
 t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c
index 702ba9731b..a0bca248ac 100644
--- a/commit-graph.c
+++ b/commit-graph.c
@@ -2610,7 +2610,7 @@ int write_commit_graph(struct odb_source *source,
 
 	g = prepare_commit_graph(ctx.r);
 	for (struct commit_graph *chain = g; chain; chain = chain->base_graph)
-		g->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
+		chain->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
 
 	if (flags & COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_BLOOM_FILTERS)
 		ctx.changed_paths = 1;
diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
index b41331e3dd..9e5ab7dbd0 100755
--- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
+++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh
@@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ test_expect_success 'write generation data chunk when commit-graph chain is repl
 	)
 '
 
-test_expect_failure 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
+test_expect_success 'incremental write reads topo levels from all layers' '
 	git init topo-from-lower &&
 	(
 		cd topo-from-lower &&
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Taylor Blau]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 04:08:36PM +0200, Kristofer Karlsson wrote:
> > Instead of writing "# BUG ..." and then an incorrect assertion, I
> > would suggest that you write the assertion you expect:
> >
> >     test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt
> >
> > , but mark the test as "test_expect_failure".
>
> I started with this actually and then changed my mind in order
> to demonstrate exactly how the counter changed, not just that it
> changed from failure to success. But I'd be happy to change this
> too if needed - it would effectively reduce the second commit to
> just the bugfix line and switching from test_expect_failure
> to test_expect_success.

Yeah, I think this would be ideal.

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Taylor Blau]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 04:57:13PM +0200, Kristofer Karlsson wrote:
> (b) Move topo_levels to struct object_database. Since
> fill_commit_graph_info() can already reach the odb via
> g->odb_source->odb, no signature changes are needed.
> The write side becomes a single assignment:
>
>     ctx.r->objects->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
>
> and cleanup becomes:
>
>     ctx.r->objects->topo_levels = NULL;
>
> No chain walk needed and the diff is fairly small.
> I am not sure about the semantics of it though -- should the odb
> have a reference to topo_levels?

This seems to be the most promising approach, though I'd be curious what
Patrick's thoughts are. The commit-slab API is really a property of the
object database, but we treat these as a global as I do not recall them
yet being touched by the ODB refactoring effort.

> [...]
>
> I have a prototype of (b) that compiles and passes the test suite.
>
> For now though, I think the minimal bugfix is the right thing to do.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] commit-graph: fix topo_levels slab propagation regression

[Taylor Blau]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 03:02:59PM +0000, Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget wrote:
> Changes since v1:
>
>  * Fixed wrong commit title and date in the reference (Junio, Taylor).
>  * use test_expect_failure with the correct assertion instead of a # BUG
>    comment (Taylor).
>  * Simplified commit messages.
>
> Kristofer Karlsson (2):
>   commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS
>   commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers
>
>  commit-graph.c                |  7 ++++++-
>  t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Thanks, this version looks good to me.

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Junio C Hamano]

Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@openai.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 04:08:36PM +0200, Kristofer Karlsson wrote:
>> > Instead of writing "# BUG ..." and then an incorrect assertion, I
>> > would suggest that you write the assertion you expect:
>> >
>> >     test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt
>> >
>> > , but mark the test as "test_expect_failure".
>>
>> I started with this actually and then changed my mind in order
>> to demonstrate exactly how the counter changed, not just that it
>> changed from failure to success. But I'd be happy to change this
>> too if needed - it would effectively reduce the second commit to
>> just the bugfix line and switching from test_expect_failure
>> to test_expect_success.
>
> Yeah, I think this would be ideal.

If the test involved is longer than 3 lines, I would recommend
against it, as "git show" of such a patch will show the full code
change to implement a different behaviour plus "_failure" changing
to "_success" in the test, with the body of the test hidden outside
the context, which makes it hard to guess what the behaviour change
is really about.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Taylor Blau]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 03:28:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@openai.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 04:08:36PM +0200, Kristofer Karlsson wrote:
> >> > Instead of writing "# BUG ..." and then an incorrect assertion, I
> >> > would suggest that you write the assertion you expect:
> >> >
> >> >     test_trace2_data commit-graph generation-dfs-steps 1 <trace.txt
> >> >
> >> > , but mark the test as "test_expect_failure".
> >>
> >> I started with this actually and then changed my mind in order
> >> to demonstrate exactly how the counter changed, not just that it
> >> changed from failure to success. But I'd be happy to change this
> >> too if needed - it would effectively reduce the second commit to
> >> just the bugfix line and switching from test_expect_failure
> >> to test_expect_success.
> >
> > Yeah, I think this would be ideal.
>
> If the test involved is longer than 3 lines, I would recommend
> against it, as "git show" of such a patch will show the full code
> change to implement a different behaviour plus "_failure" changing
> to "_success" in the test, with the body of the test hidden outside
> the context, which makes it hard to guess what the behaviour change
> is really about.

Hmm, I am not sure that I agree. Or, at the very least, that is now how
I have written series in the past where I want to demonstrate and then
subsequently fix an existing bug.

When either the test setup or the bugfix is trivial, I think having it
in the same commit is just fine. But I think there are two good reasons
for splitting it out if the test or bug is complex:

 - If the test is complex, but the complexity is not directly related to
   the bugfix, having to explain both in the same commit message can be
   awkward, and makes it harder for a reviewer to reason about either
   component of the patch.

 - If the bugfix is complex, having the failing test in a separate
   commit demonstrates that the bug existed before, but is definitively
   fixed in the following commit, as both would be expected to 'make
   test' cleanly.

I am happy to change my style if you feel strongly. It would be nice to
document this in CodingGuidelines (or SubmittingPatches?) if it is not
already.

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Junio C Hamano]

Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@openai.com> writes:

>> If the test involved is longer than 3 lines, I would recommend
>> against it, as "git show" of such a patch will show the full code
>> change to implement a different behaviour plus "_failure" changing
>> to "_success" in the test, with the body of the test hidden outside
>> the context, which makes it hard to guess what the behaviour change
>> is really about.
>
> Hmm, I am not sure that I agree. Or, at the very least, that is now how
> I have written series in the past where I want to demonstrate and then
> subsequently fix an existing bug.

After applying and in viewing "git log -W -p", there is no such
difficulty like the one I described in the message you are
responding to, but it makes it harder on reviewers on the mailing
list, to make a quick pre-review based only on the material that
they can see in the e-mail.

It may be easier to write the commits, but given that we seem to
have more patches sent to the list than reviewers can review, it may
not be a good trade-off.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Patrick Steinhardt]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 04:57:13PM +0200, Kristofer Karlsson wrote:
> > (b) Move topo_levels to struct object_database. Since
> > fill_commit_graph_info() can already reach the odb via
> > g->odb_source->odb, no signature changes are needed.
> > The write side becomes a single assignment:
> >
> >     ctx.r->objects->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
> >
> > and cleanup becomes:
> >
> >     ctx.r->objects->topo_levels = NULL;
> >
> > No chain walk needed and the diff is fairly small.
> > I am not sure about the semantics of it though -- should the odb
> > have a reference to topo_levels?
> 
> This seems to be the most promising approach, though I'd be curious what
> Patrick's thoughts are. The commit-slab API is really a property of the
> object database, but we treat these as a global as I do not recall them
> yet being touched by the ODB refactoring effort.

I was investigating several times whether we can remove them from global
scope and move them into the object database indeed. The answer is that
it's somewhat complicated because we reuse the slab for multiple
different things, and detangling that has proven to be a bit of a mess.

The other question here is whether commit graphs really are a property
of the object database itself, or whether they are rather a property of
a given backend. Sure, we can only have a single commit graph at any
point in time, so they feel like they are at the object database level.
But is the current implementation of a commit graph really the best for
all potential backends out there?

If you take for example a distributed backend to store objects, then you
probably don't want to have a single local commit graph that is stored
in ".git/objects/info". Furthermore, the current format may not even be
the best one to store the cached information, either.

So ultimately, I can see one of two approaches:
 
  - Either we make the commit graph itself pluggable as a standalone
    mechanism, too.

  - Or we treat it as a property of the object backend.

I haven't fully made up my mind yet. But I guess detangling the current
mess that we have with the commit graphs would help regardless of which
direction we eventually go into.

Thanks!

Patrick

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Kristofer Karlsson]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 at 23:18, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@openai.com> writes:
>
> >> If the test involved is longer than 3 lines, I would recommend
> >> against it, as "git show" of such a patch will show the full code
> >> change to implement a different behaviour plus "_failure" changing
> >> to "_success" in the test, with the body of the test hidden outside
> >> the context, which makes it hard to guess what the behaviour change
> >> is really about.
> >
> > Hmm, I am not sure that I agree. Or, at the very least, that is now how
> > I have written series in the past where I want to demonstrate and then
> > subsequently fix an existing bug.
>
> After applying and in viewing "git log -W -p", there is no such
> difficulty like the one I described in the message you are
> responding to, but it makes it harder on reviewers on the mailing
> list, to make a quick pre-review based only on the material that
> they can see in the e-mail.
>
> It may be easier to write the commits, but given that we seem to
> have more patches sent to the list than reviewers can review, it may
> not be a good trade-off.

I've been pondering this dilemma for a bit. I agree with Taylor
that atomic commits are valuable and I quite like proving the bug
exists before fixing it. It's not black and white though,
for race conditions or hard to reproduce cases I tend to fold the
test into the fix commit directly instead.

But the review process is also critical and its overhead should be
minimized.

Could tooling help here? The submitter should know which parts
of the patch need more context for review. If they could selectively
expand context before sending, reviewers would see the full picture
in the email without sacrificing having atomic commits.

git apply already handles patches with extra context lines just
fine, so we just need something to assist in producing that extra
context -- either some configurability in git format-patch itself
(like -W, but more fine-grained control over _where_ that gets
applied) or some post-processing tool to expand context in patches
before sending.

Too late for this round, but I might give that a try in the future
if I run into a similar scenario again.

Thanks,
Kristofer

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Junio C Hamano]

Kristofer Karlsson <krka@spotify.com> writes:

> I've been pondering this dilemma for a bit. I agree with Taylor
> that atomic commits are valuable and I quite like proving the bug
> exists before fixing it.

I do not quite understand.  Even if you fix the code and add a
passing test, the commit remains atomic.  With an artificial
split, you only increase your commit count while making the changes
harder to review.  When grouping a code fix with a newly passing
test:

  * "git show" displays both the implementation changes and the
    test.  You can review both, and if you agree with the behavior
    expected by the test, the change is complete.

  * If the pre-fix behavior is unclear, it is easy to check by
    running:

      $ git show ':!t/' | git apply -R && make test

    This demonstrates exactly how the unfixed code breaks on the
    new test.

> Too late for this round, but I might give that a try in the future
> if I run into a similar scenario again.

The existing tooling already supports this workflow (as demonstrated
by the command above).  Please avoid artificially making the context
larger, as doing so increases the likelihood of merge conflicts with
other changes.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: add trace2 instrumentation for generation DFS

[Kristofer Karlsson]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 at 22:42, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> I do not quite understand.  Even if you fix the code and add a
> passing test, the commit remains atomic.  With an artificial
> split, you only increase your commit count while making the changes
> harder to review.  When grouping a code fix with a newly passing
> test:
>
>   * "git show" displays both the implementation changes and the
>     test.  You can review both, and if you agree with the behavior
>     expected by the test, the change is complete.
>
>   * If the pre-fix behavior is unclear, it is easy to check by
>     running:
>
>       $ git show ':!t/' | git apply -R && make test

That's quite neat, and it matches the local
development flow if you write the failing test first.

I can see the advantages of grouping the test and bugfix in the
same commit, and I'm happy to follow that convention going forward.

> > Too late for this round, but I might give that a try in the future
> > if I run into a similar scenario again.
>
> The existing tooling already supports this workflow (as demonstrated
> by the command above).  Please avoid artificially making the context
> larger, as doing so increases the likelihood of merge conflicts with
> other changes.

Thanks, that makes sense. It was an interesting thought experiment,
but I'll leave it there.

- Kristofer

Re: [PATCH 2/2] commit-graph: propagate topo_levels slab to all chain layers

[Taylor Blau]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:16:31AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 03:14:28PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 04:57:13PM +0200, Kristofer Karlsson wrote:
> > > (b) Move topo_levels to struct object_database. Since
> > > fill_commit_graph_info() can already reach the odb via
> > > g->odb_source->odb, no signature changes are needed.
> > > The write side becomes a single assignment:
> > >
> > >     ctx.r->objects->topo_levels = &topo_levels;
> > >
> > > and cleanup becomes:
> > >
> > >     ctx.r->objects->topo_levels = NULL;
> > >
> > > No chain walk needed and the diff is fairly small.
> > > I am not sure about the semantics of it though -- should the odb
> > > have a reference to topo_levels?
> >
> > This seems to be the most promising approach, though I'd be curious what
> > Patrick's thoughts are. The commit-slab API is really a property of the
> > object database, but we treat these as a global as I do not recall them
> > yet being touched by the ODB refactoring effort.
>
> I was investigating several times whether we can remove them from global
> scope and move them into the object database indeed. The answer is that
> it's somewhat complicated because we reuse the slab for multiple
> different things, and detangling that has proven to be a bit of a mess.

It's an interesting question, and I think worth discussing, though note
that I would also like to ensure that we resolve this in the short-term
to prevent any future regression while the pluggable ODB refactor
continues on.

> The other question here is whether commit graphs really are a property
> of the object database itself, or whether they are rather a property of
> a given backend. Sure, we can only have a single commit graph at any
> point in time, so they feel like they are at the object database level.
> But is the current implementation of a commit graph really the best for
> all potential backends out there?
>
> If you take for example a distributed backend to store objects, then you
> probably don't want to have a single local commit graph that is stored
> in ".git/objects/info". Furthermore, the current format may not even be
> the best one to store the cached information, either.

I think I agree here in part, though I think there is some subtlety that
is specific to commit-graphs.

If I understand your argument correctly, I think that I am on-board with
it if you substitute "commit-graph" with "MIDX" or "reachability
bitmaps", as those are optimizations over a specific representation of
the object store.

The commit-graph is somewhat of an oddity in that regard. While it is
partially an optimization in the representation format, it is also a
data-structure which is useful independent of the underlying storage. On
the former, I absolutely agree with what you're saying: having a
row-oriented layout to optimize commit traversals may not be necessary
in a different implementation of the object store which has efficient
enough access to the commit objects so as to make the row-oriented
layout unnecessary.

However, it is a useful question to ask "what is the generation number
of this commit?" independently of whether we store the commit objects
themselves in the existing ODB, in a generic blob storage system, or
something else entirely.

Thanks,
Taylor