* [PATCH] Fix potential local deadlock during fetch-pack @ 2011-03-29 17:06 Junio C Hamano 2011-03-29 17:22 ` Shawn Pearce 2011-03-30 9:42 ` Erik Faye-Lund 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-03-29 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git; +Cc: Shawn O. Pearce The fetch-pack/upload-pack protocol relies on the underlying transport (local pipe or TCP socket) to have enough slack to allow one window worth of data in flight without blocking the writer. Traditionally we always relied on being able to have a batch of 32 "have"s in flight (roughly 1.5k bytes) to stream. The recent "progressive-stride" change allows "fetch-pack" to send up to 1024 "have"s without reading any response from "upload-pack". The outgoing pipe of "upload-pack" can be clogged with many ACK and NAK that are unread, while "fetch-pack" is still stuffing its outgoing pike with more "have"s, leading to a deadlock. Revert the change unless we are in stateless rpc (aka smart-http) mode, as using a large window full of "have"s is still a good way to help reduce the number of back-and-forth, and there is no buffering issue there (it is strictly "ping-pong" without an overlap). Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> --- builtin/fetch-pack.c | 9 +++++---- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/builtin/fetch-pack.c b/builtin/fetch-pack.c index 1724b76..e5fdacd 100644 --- a/builtin/fetch-pack.c +++ b/builtin/fetch-pack.c @@ -229,16 +229,17 @@ static void insert_alternate_refs(void) } #define INITIAL_FLUSH 16 +#define PIPESAFE_FLUSH 32 #define LARGE_FLUSH 1024 static int next_flush(int count) { - if (count < INITIAL_FLUSH * 2) - count += INITIAL_FLUSH; - else if (count < LARGE_FLUSH) + int flush_limit = args.stateless_rpc ? LARGE_FLUSH : PIPESAFE_FLUSH; + + if (count < flush_limit) count <<= 1; else - count += LARGE_FLUSH; + count += flush_limit; return count; } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix potential local deadlock during fetch-pack 2011-03-29 17:06 [PATCH] Fix potential local deadlock during fetch-pack Junio C Hamano @ 2011-03-29 17:22 ` Shawn Pearce 2011-03-29 17:30 ` Shawn Pearce 2011-03-30 9:42 ` Erik Faye-Lund 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Shawn Pearce @ 2011-03-29 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:06, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > The fetch-pack/upload-pack protocol relies on the underlying transport > (local pipe or TCP socket) to have enough slack to allow one window worth > of data in flight without blocking the writer. Traditionally we always > relied on being able to have a batch of 32 "have"s in flight (roughly 1.5k Its 64. Because the client "races ahead" one window before ever reading. Which is closer to 3K of data in flight. > The recent "progressive-stride" change allows "fetch-pack" to send up to > 1024 "have"s without reading any response from "upload-pack". The > outgoing pipe of "upload-pack" can be clogged with many ACK and NAK that > are unread, while "fetch-pack" is still stuffing its outgoing pike with s/pike/pipe/ > @@ -229,16 +229,17 @@ static void insert_alternate_refs(void) > } > > #define INITIAL_FLUSH 16 > +#define PIPESAFE_FLUSH 32 > #define LARGE_FLUSH 1024 > > static int next_flush(int count) > { > - if (count < INITIAL_FLUSH * 2) > - count += INITIAL_FLUSH; > - else if (count < LARGE_FLUSH) > + int flush_limit = args.stateless_rpc ? LARGE_FLUSH : PIPESAFE_FLUSH; > + > + if (count < flush_limit) > count <<= 1; > else > - count += LARGE_FLUSH; > + count += flush_limit; Nak. You still deadlock because when count reaches PIPESAFE_FLUSH you still double it to 2*PIPESAFE_FLUSH here. Instead I think you mean: if (args.stateless_rpc) { if (count < LARGE_FLUSH) count <<= 1; else count += LARGE_FLUSH; } else { if (count * 2 < PIPESAFE_FLUSH) count <<= 1; } -- Shawn. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix potential local deadlock during fetch-pack 2011-03-29 17:22 ` Shawn Pearce @ 2011-03-29 17:30 ` Shawn Pearce 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Shawn Pearce @ 2011-03-29 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:22, Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:06, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> The fetch-pack/upload-pack protocol relies on the underlying transport >> (local pipe or TCP socket) to have enough slack to allow one window worth >> of data in flight without blocking the writer. Traditionally we always >> relied on being able to have a batch of 32 "have"s in flight (roughly 1.5k > >> + count += flush_limit; > > Nak. You still deadlock because when count reaches PIPESAFE_FLUSH you > still double it to 2*PIPESAFE_FLUSH here. Instead I think you mean: I take this comment back. Re-reading fetch-pack.c the next_flush() method is accepting as input a running counter of how many have lines have already been sent to the remote peer, and is never reset to 0. Therefore it is necessary to add the next round size to count and return it. -- Shawn. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix potential local deadlock during fetch-pack 2011-03-29 17:06 [PATCH] Fix potential local deadlock during fetch-pack Junio C Hamano 2011-03-29 17:22 ` Shawn Pearce @ 2011-03-30 9:42 ` Erik Faye-Lund 2011-03-30 9:50 ` Erik Faye-Lund 2011-03-31 16:24 ` Shawn Pearce 1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Erik Faye-Lund @ 2011-03-30 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git, Shawn O. Pearce, msysGit, Johannes Sixt On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > The fetch-pack/upload-pack protocol relies on the underlying transport > (local pipe or TCP socket) to have enough slack to allow one window worth > of data in flight without blocking the writer. Traditionally we always > relied on being able to have a batch of 32 "have"s in flight (roughly 1.5k > bytes) to stream. > Hmm, this explanation makes me wonder: Could this be related to the deadlock we're experiencing with git-push over the git-protocol on Windows when side-band-64k is enabled? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix potential local deadlock during fetch-pack 2011-03-30 9:42 ` Erik Faye-Lund @ 2011-03-30 9:50 ` Erik Faye-Lund 2011-03-31 16:24 ` Shawn Pearce 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Erik Faye-Lund @ 2011-03-30 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git, Shawn O. Pearce, msysGit, Johannes Sixt On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> The fetch-pack/upload-pack protocol relies on the underlying transport >> (local pipe or TCP socket) to have enough slack to allow one window worth >> of data in flight without blocking the writer. Traditionally we always >> relied on being able to have a batch of 32 "have"s in flight (roughly 1.5k >> bytes) to stream. >> > > Hmm, this explanation makes me wonder: Could this be related to the > deadlock we're experiencing with git-push over the git-protocol on > Windows when side-band-64k is enabled? > No, It doesn't seem like that's it. The socket buffers appears to be 8k by default on Windows, which should be plenty, right? ---8<--- diff --git a/compat/mingw.c b/compat/mingw.c index d527562..985c271 100644 --- a/compat/mingw.c +++ b/compat/mingw.c @@ -1404,7 +1404,7 @@ int mingw_getnameinfo(const struct sockaddr *sa, socklen_t salen, int mingw_socket(int domain, int type, int protocol) { - int sockfd; + int sockfd, val, len; SOCKET s; ensure_socket_initialization(); @@ -1428,6 +1428,12 @@ int mingw_socket(int domain, int type, int protocol) return error("unable to make a socket file descriptor: %s", strerror(errno)); } + + len = sizeof(val); + if (!getsockopt(s, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, (char *)&val, &len)) + fprintf(stderr, "SO_RCVBUF: %d\n", val); + len = sizeof(val); + if (!getsockopt(s, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUF, (char *)&val, &len)) + fprintf(stderr, "SO_SNDBUF: %d\n", val); return sockfd; } ---8<--- $ git push git://localhost SO_RCVBUF: 8192 SO_SNDBUF: 8192 ... ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix potential local deadlock during fetch-pack 2011-03-30 9:42 ` Erik Faye-Lund 2011-03-30 9:50 ` Erik Faye-Lund @ 2011-03-31 16:24 ` Shawn Pearce 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Shawn Pearce @ 2011-03-31 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kusmabite; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, git, msysGit, Johannes Sixt On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:42, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> The fetch-pack/upload-pack protocol relies on the underlying transport >> (local pipe or TCP socket) to have enough slack to allow one window worth >> of data in flight without blocking the writer. Traditionally we always >> relied on being able to have a batch of 32 "have"s in flight (roughly 1.5k >> bytes) to stream. > > Hmm, this explanation makes me wonder: Could this be related to the > deadlock we're experiencing with git-push over the git-protocol on > Windows when side-band-64k is enabled? I think its unrelated. It might also be a deadlock, but the push protocol is quite a bit different. As far as I remember, there is no risk of deadlock in the push protocol. -- Shawn. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-03-31 16:25 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-03-29 17:06 [PATCH] Fix potential local deadlock during fetch-pack Junio C Hamano 2011-03-29 17:22 ` Shawn Pearce 2011-03-29 17:30 ` Shawn Pearce 2011-03-30 9:42 ` Erik Faye-Lund 2011-03-30 9:50 ` Erik Faye-Lund 2011-03-31 16:24 ` Shawn Pearce
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).