From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fetch: forgo full connectivity check if --filter
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 12:43:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200129204326.GB17350@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <be1d6aa4c4fd8868f3682b73c01a92d3830534ad.1578802317.git.jonathantanmy@google.com>
Jonathan Tan wrote:
> If a filter is specified, we do not need a full connectivity check on
> the contents of the packfile we just fetched; we only need to check that
> the objects referenced are promisor objects.
>
> This significantly speeds up fetches into repositories that have many
> promisor objects, because during the connectivity check, all promisor
> objects are enumerated (to mark them UNINTERESTING), and that takes a
> significant amount of time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
> ---
> For example, a local fetch was sped up from 6.63s to 3.39s. The bulk of
> the remaining time is spent in yet another connectivity check
> (fetch_refs -> check_exist_and_connected) prior to the fetch - that will
> hopefully be done in a subsequent patch.
Can this information (at least the speedup) be included in the comment
message?
Or even better, can we demonstrate the impact using a perf test?
> --- a/builtin/fetch.c
> +++ b/builtin/fetch.c
> @@ -906,8 +906,17 @@ static int store_updated_refs(const char *raw_url, const char *remote_name,
> url = xstrdup("foreign");
>
> if (!connectivity_checked) {
> + struct check_connected_options opt = CHECK_CONNECTED_INIT;
> +
> + if (filter_options.choice)
> + /*
> + * Since a filter is specified, objects indirectly
> + * referenced by refs are allowed to be absent.
> + */
> + opt.check_refs_are_promisor_objects_only = 1;
> +
> rm = ref_map;
> - if (check_connected(iterate_ref_map, &rm, NULL)) {
> + if (check_connected(iterate_ref_map, &rm, &opt)) {
> rc = error(_("%s did not send all necessary objects\n"), url);
> goto abort;
> }
Simple and sensible. With or without a change like described above,
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-29 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-12 4:15 [PATCH 0/2] Skip a connectivity check during fetch --filter Jonathan Tan
2020-01-12 4:15 ` [PATCH 1/2] connected: verify promisor-ness of partial clone Jonathan Tan
2020-01-29 20:41 ` Jonathan Nieder
2020-01-12 4:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] fetch: forgo full connectivity check if --filter Jonathan Tan
2020-01-29 20:43 ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2020-01-30 18:57 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200129204326.GB17350@google.com \
--to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).