From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>,
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pull: release packs before fetching
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:16:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqh7eu3mjb.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0e956ae7bba906277c77103ae329bce6d6da4cfe.1631089771.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> (Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget's message of "Wed, 08 Sep 2021 08:29:31 +0000")
"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:
> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
>
> On Windows, files cannot be removed nor renamed if there are still
> handles held by a process. To remedy that, we try to release all open
> handles to any `.pack` file before e.g. repacking (which would want to
> remove the original `.pack` file(s) after it is done).
>
> Since the `read_cache_unmerged()` and/or the `get_oid()` call in `git
> pull` can cause `.pack` files to be opened, we need to release the open
> handles before calling `git fetch`: the latter process might want to
> spawn an auto-gc, which in turn might want to repack the objects.
>
> This commit is similar in spirit to 5bdece0d705 (gc/repack: release
> packs when needed, 2018-12-15).
>
> This fixes https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/3336.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
> builtin/pull.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
After run_fetch() returns, we then go on to access objects from our
object store (that's natural---after all, we fetched because we
wanted to access the objects we have plus objects they have to offer
to us) and the object store is transparently reopened for us. Which
may make a bit confusing API to newbies, but is an easy one to use,
once we get used to it.
A few general comments.
* Right now, run_fetch() does not do anything that needs to access
objects, but there is no reason to expect that will continue to
be the case, and once we added an call to an innocuous helper
function that happens to access objects, the close_object_store()
call made by the caller before run_fetch() was called becomes
moot. The more we can delay the call to close_object_store(),
the better. And the absolute last point we can defer the call to
close_object_store() is where immediately before run_fetch() calls
run_command_v_opt() to spawn "git fetch".
* Which makes me wonder if we may be better off having a bit in the
flags word the run_command() API takes to make a call to
close_object_store() for us. run_fetch() that uses the
run_command API can use that bit without having to worry about
making a call to close_object_store() itself and when.
* Hits from "git grep -A2 close_object_store()" shows a notable
pattern. Before run_auto_maintenance(), we often see a call to
it. It almost feels (but I didn't dig it deeper) that a call to
run_auto_maintenance() that does not call close_object_store()
before doing so is a bug (there is one in builtin/commit.c).
* Which in turn makes me wonder if these many calls to close before
run_auto_maintenance() should be moved to run_auto_maintenance()
itself (which in turn can use the new flags bit in the
run_command() API).
Sprinkling yet another call to close_object_store() as we discover
need for doing so like this patch does is certainly OK, but as we
add new hooks and higher-level commands, it will get messier and
messier. It probably may make sense to go in and clean it up,
hopefully guided by the above observations, either before this
"fix", or soon after it graduates before we forget.
Will queue, but will not merge down to 'next' until I hear an Ack on
the commit-graph stuff.
Thanks.
> diff --git a/builtin/pull.c b/builtin/pull.c
> index 3e13f810843..d9f0156d969 100644
> --- a/builtin/pull.c
> +++ b/builtin/pull.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include "wt-status.h"
> #include "commit-reach.h"
> #include "sequencer.h"
> +#include "packfile.h"
>
> /**
> * Parses the value of --rebase. If value is a false value, returns
> @@ -998,6 +999,7 @@ int cmd_pull(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> oidclr(&rebase_fork_point);
> }
>
> + close_object_store(the_repository->objects);
> if (run_fetch(repo, refspecs))
> return 1;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-08 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-08 8:29 [PATCH 0/2] pull: release handles to pack files before potentially gc'ing Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2021-09-08 8:29 ` [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph: when closing the graph, also release the slab Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2021-09-08 8:29 ` [PATCH 2/2] pull: release packs before fetching Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2021-09-08 19:16 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2021-09-09 11:20 ` Johannes Schindelin
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=xmqqh7eu3mjb.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=dstolee@microsoft.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
/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).