This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Something is broken in repack


On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:

> This makes sense. Those runs that blew up to 4.5GB were a combination
> of this effect and fragmentation in the gcc allocator.

I disagree.  This is insane.

> Google allocator appears to be much better at controlling fragmentation.

Indeed.  And if fragmentation is indeed wasting half of Git's memory 
usage then we'll have to come with a custom memory allocator.

> Is there a reasonable scheme to force the chains to only be loaded
> once and then shared between worker threads? The memory blow up
> appears to be directly correlated with chain length.

No.  That would be the equivalent of holding each revision of all files 
uncompressed all at once in memory.

> > That said, I suspect there are a few things fighting you:
> >
> >  - threading is hard. I haven't looked a lot at the changes Nico did to do
> >    a threaded object packer, but what I've seen does not convince me it is
> >    correct. The "trg_entry" accesses are *mostly* protected with
> >    "cache_lock", but nothing else really seems to be, so quite frankly, I
> >    wouldn't trust the threaded version very much. It's off by default, and
> >    for a good reason, I think.
> >
> >    For example: the packing code does this:
> >
> >         if (!src->data) {
> >                 read_lock();
> >                 src->data = read_sha1_file(src_entry->idx.sha1, &type, &sz);
> >                 read_unlock();
> >                 ...
> >
> >    and that's racy. If two threads come in at roughly the same time and
> >    see a NULL src->data, theyÍ'll both get the lock, and they'll both
> >    (serially) try to fill it in. It will all *work*, but one of them will
> >    have done unnecessary work, and one of them will have their result
> >    thrown away and leaked.
> 
> That may account for the threaded version needing an extra 20 minutes
> CPU time.  An extra 12% of CPU seems like too much overhead for
> threading. Just letting a couple of those long chain compressions be
> done twice

No it may not.  This theory is wrong as explained before.

> >
> >    Are you hitting issues like this? I dunno. The object sorting means
> >    that different threads normally shouldn't look at the same objects (not
> >    even the sources), so probably not, but basically, I wouldn't trust the
> >    threading 100%. It needs work, and it needs to stay off by default.
> >
> >  - you're working on a problem that isn't really even worth optimizing
> >    that much. The *normal* case is to re-use old deltas, which makes all
> >    of the issues you are fighting basically go away (because you only have
> >    a few _incremental_ objects that need deltaing).
> 
> I agree, this problem only occurs when people import giant
> repositories. But every time someone hits these problems they declare
> git to be screwed up and proceed to thrash it in their blogs.

It's not only for repack.  Someone just reported git-blame being 
unusable too due to insane memory usage, which I suspect is due to the 
same issue.


Nicolas

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]