git/merge-ort.c

4649 строки
148 KiB
C
Исходник Обычный вид История

/*
* "Ostensibly Recursive's Twin" merge strategy, or "ort" for short. Meant
* as a drop-in replacement for the "recursive" merge strategy, allowing one
* to replace
*
* git merge [-s recursive]
*
* with
*
* git merge -s ort
*
* Note: git's parser allows the space between '-s' and its argument to be
* missing. (Should I have backronymed "ham", "alsa", "kip", "nap, "alvo",
* "cale", "peedy", or "ins" instead of "ort"?)
*/
#include "cache.h"
#include "merge-ort.h"
#include "alloc.h"
#include "attr.h"
#include "blob.h"
#include "cache-tree.h"
#include "commit.h"
#include "commit-reach.h"
merge-ort: port merge_start() from merge-recursive merge_start() basically does a bunch of sanity checks, then allocates and initializes opt->priv -- a struct merge_options_internal. Most of the sanity checks are usable as-is. The allocation/intialization is a bit different since merge-ort has a very different merge_options_internal than merge-recursive, but the idea is the same. The weirdest part here is that merge-ort and merge-recursive use the same struct merge_options, even though merge_options has a number of fields that are oddly specific to merge-recursive's internal implementation and don't even make sense with merge-ort's high-level design (e.g. buffer_output, which merge-ort has to always do). I reused the same data structure because: * most the fields made sense to both merge algorithms * making a new struct would have required making new enums or somehow externalizing them, and that was getting messy. * it simplifies converting the existing callers by not having to have different code paths for merge_options setup. I also marked detect_renames as ignored. We can revisit that later, but in short: merge-recursive allowed turning off rename detection because it was sometimes glacially slow. When you speed something up by a few orders of magnitude, it's worth revisiting whether that justification is still relevant. Besides, if folks find it's still too slow, perhaps they have a better scaling case than I could find and maybe it turns up some more optimizations we can add. If it still is needed as an option, it is easy to add later. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:10 +03:00
#include "diff.h"
#include "diffcore.h"
#include "dir.h"
#include "entry.h"
#include "ll-merge.h"
#include "object-store.h"
merge-ort: add prefetching for content merges Commit 7fbbcb21b1 ("diff: batch fetching of missing blobs", 2019-04-05) introduced batching of fetching missing blobs, so that the diff machinery would have one fetch subprocess grab N blobs instead of N processes each grabbing 1. However, the diff machinery is not the only thing in a merge that needs to work on blobs. The 3-way content merges need them as well. Rather than download all the blobs 1 at a time, prefetch all the blobs needed for regular content merges. This does not cover all possible paths in merge-ort that might need to download blobs. Others include: - The blob_unchanged() calls to avoid modify/delete conflicts (when blob renormalization results in an "unchanged" file) - Preliminary content merges needed for rename/add and rename/rename(2to1) style conflicts. (Both of these types of conflicts can result in nested conflict markers from the need to do two levels of content merging; the first happens before our new prefetch_for_content_merges() function.) The first of these wouldn't be an extreme amount of work to support, and even the second could be theoretically supported in batching, but all of these cases seem unusual to me, and this is a minor performance optimization anyway; in the worst case we only get some of the fetches batched and have a few additional one-off fetches. So for now, just handle the regular 3-way content merges in our prefetching. For the testcase from the previous commit, the number of downloaded objects remains at 63, but this drops the number of fetches needed from 32 down to 20, a sizeable reduction. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-22 11:04:41 +03:00
#include "promisor-remote.h"
#include "revision.h"
#include "strmap.h"
#include "submodule.h"
#include "tree.h"
#include "unpack-trees.h"
merge-ort: use histogram diff In my cursory investigation, histogram diffs are about 2% slower than Myers diffs. Others have probably done more detailed benchmarks. But, in short, histogram diffs have been around for years and in a number of cases provide obviously better looking diffs where Myers diffs are unintelligible but the performance hit has kept them from becoming the default. However, there are real merge bugs we know about that have triggered on git.git and linux.git, which I don't have a clue how to address without the additional information that I believe is provided by histogram diffs. See the following: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190816184051.GB13894@sigill.intra.peff.net/ https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BHvJHpSJT7sdFwfNcPn_sOXwJi3=o14qjZS3M8Rzcxe2A@mail.gmail.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGtez4qjbtFT1hQoREfcJPmk9MzjhY5eEq1QhXT23tFOw@mail.gmail.com/ I don't like mismerges. I really don't like silent mismerges. While I am sometimes willing to make performance and correctness tradeoff, I'm much more interested in correctness in general. I want to fix the above bugs. I have not yet started doing so, but I believe histogram diff at least gives me an angle. Unfortunately, I can't rely on using the information from histogram diff unless it's in use. And it hasn't been used because of a few percentage performance hit. In testcases I have looked at, merge-ort is _much_ faster than merge-recursive for non-trivial merges/rebases/cherry-picks. As such, this is a golden opportunity to switch out the underlying diff algorithm (at least the one used by the merge machinery; git-diff and git-log are separate questions); doing so will allow me to get additional data and improved diffs, and I believe it will help me fix the above bugs at some point in the future. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:11 +03:00
#include "xdiff-interface.h"
/*
* We have many arrays of size 3. Whenever we have such an array, the
* indices refer to one of the sides of the three-way merge. This is so
* pervasive that the constants 0, 1, and 2 are used in many places in the
* code (especially in arithmetic operations to find the other side's index
* or to compute a relevant mask), but sometimes these enum names are used
* to aid code clarity.
*
* See also 'filemask' and 'dirmask' in struct conflict_info; the "ith side"
* referred to there is one of these three sides.
*/
enum merge_side {
MERGE_BASE = 0,
MERGE_SIDE1 = 1,
MERGE_SIDE2 = 2
};
static unsigned RESULT_INITIALIZED = 0x1abe11ed; /* unlikely accidental value */
struct traversal_callback_data {
unsigned long mask;
unsigned long dirmask;
struct name_entry names[3];
};
merge-ort: add data structures for allowable trivial directory resolves As noted a few commits ago, we can resolve individual files early if all three sides of the merge have a file at the path and two of the three sides match. We would really like to do the same thing with directories, because being able to do a trivial directory resolve means we don't have to recurse into the directory, potentially saving us a huge amount of time in both collect_merge_info() and process_entries(). Unfortunately, resolving directories early would mean missing any renames whose source or destination is underneath that directory. If we somehow knew there weren't any renames under the directory in question, then we could resolve it early. Sadly, it is impossible to determine whether there are renames under the directory in question without recursing into it, and this has traditionally kept us from ever implementing such an optimization. In commit f89b4f2bee ("merge-ort: skip rename detection entirely if possible", 2021-03-11), we added an additional reason that rename detection could be skipped entirely -- namely, if no *relevant* sources were present. Without completing collect_merge_info_callback(), we do not yet know if there are no relevant sources. However, we do know that if the current directory on one side matches the merge base, then every source file within that directory will not be RELEVANT_CONTENT, and a few simple checks can often let us rule out RELEVANT_LOCATION as well. This suggests we can just defer recursing into such directories until the end of collect_merge_info. Since the deferred directories are known to not add any relevant sources due to the above properties, then if there are no relevant sources after we've traversed all paths other than the deferred ones, then we know there are not any relevant sources. Under those conditions, rename detection is unnecessary, and that means we can resolve the deferred directories without recursing into them. Note that the logic for skipping rename detection was also modified further in commit 76e253793c ("merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible", 2021-01-30); in particular rename detection can be skipped if we already have cached renames for each relevant source. We can take advantage of this information as well with our deferral of recursing into directories where one side matches the merge base. Add some data structures that we will use to do these deferrals, with some lengthy comments explaining their purpose. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:33 +03:00
struct deferred_traversal_data {
/*
* possible_trivial_merges: directories to be explored only when needed
*
* possible_trivial_merges is a map of directory names to
* dir_rename_mask. When we detect that a directory is unchanged on
* one side, we can sometimes resolve the directory without recursing
* into it. Renames are the only things that can prevent such an
* optimization. However, for rename sources:
* - If no parent directory needed directory rename detection, then
* no path under such a directory can be a relevant_source.
* and for rename destinations:
* - If no cached rename has a target path under the directory AND
* - If there are no unpaired relevant_sources elsewhere in the
* repository
* then we don't need any path under this directory for a rename
* destination. The only way to know the last item above is to defer
* handling such directories until the end of collect_merge_info(),
* in handle_deferred_entries().
*
* For each we store dir_rename_mask, since that's the only bit of
* information we need, other than the path, to resume the recursive
* traversal.
*/
struct strintmap possible_trivial_merges;
/*
* trivial_merges_okay: if trivial directory merges are okay
*
* See possible_trivial_merges above. The "no unpaired
* relevant_sources elsewhere in the repository" is a single boolean
* per merge side, which we store here. Note that while 0 means no,
* 1 only means "maybe" rather than "yes"; we optimistically set it
* to 1 initially and only clear when we determine it is unsafe to
* do trivial directory merges.
*/
unsigned trivial_merges_okay;
/*
* target_dirs: ancestor directories of rename targets
*
* target_dirs contains all directory names that are an ancestor of
* any rename destination.
*/
struct strset target_dirs;
};
struct rename_info {
/*
* All variables that are arrays of size 3 correspond to data tracked
* for the sides in enum merge_side. Index 0 is almost always unused
* because we often only need to track information for MERGE_SIDE1 and
* MERGE_SIDE2 (MERGE_BASE can't have rename information since renames
* are determined relative to what changed since the MERGE_BASE).
*/
/*
* pairs: pairing of filenames from diffcore_rename()
*/
struct diff_queue_struct pairs[3];
/*
* dirs_removed: directories removed on a given side of history.
*
* The keys of dirs_removed[side] are the directories that were removed
* on the given side of history. The value of the strintmap for each
* directory is a value from enum dir_rename_relevance.
*/
struct strintmap dirs_removed[3];
/*
* dir_rename_count: tracking where parts of a directory were renamed to
*
* When files in a directory are renamed, they may not all go to the
* same location. Each strmap here tracks:
* old_dir => {new_dir => int}
* That is, dir_rename_count[side] is a strmap to a strintmap.
*/
struct strmap dir_rename_count[3];
/*
* dir_renames: computed directory renames
*
* This is a map of old_dir => new_dir and is derived in part from
* dir_rename_count.
*/
struct strmap dir_renames[3];
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
/*
* relevant_sources: deleted paths wanted in rename detection, and why
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
*
* relevant_sources is a set of deleted paths on each side of
* history for which we need rename detection. If a path is deleted
* on one side of history, we need to detect if it is part of a
* rename if either
* * the file is modified/deleted on the other side of history
* * we need to detect renames for an ancestor directory
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
* If neither of those are true, we can skip rename detection for
* that path. The reason is stored as a value from enum
* file_rename_relevance, as the reason can inform the algorithm in
* diffcore_rename_extended().
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
*/
struct strintmap relevant_sources[3];
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
merge-ort: add data structures for allowable trivial directory resolves As noted a few commits ago, we can resolve individual files early if all three sides of the merge have a file at the path and two of the three sides match. We would really like to do the same thing with directories, because being able to do a trivial directory resolve means we don't have to recurse into the directory, potentially saving us a huge amount of time in both collect_merge_info() and process_entries(). Unfortunately, resolving directories early would mean missing any renames whose source or destination is underneath that directory. If we somehow knew there weren't any renames under the directory in question, then we could resolve it early. Sadly, it is impossible to determine whether there are renames under the directory in question without recursing into it, and this has traditionally kept us from ever implementing such an optimization. In commit f89b4f2bee ("merge-ort: skip rename detection entirely if possible", 2021-03-11), we added an additional reason that rename detection could be skipped entirely -- namely, if no *relevant* sources were present. Without completing collect_merge_info_callback(), we do not yet know if there are no relevant sources. However, we do know that if the current directory on one side matches the merge base, then every source file within that directory will not be RELEVANT_CONTENT, and a few simple checks can often let us rule out RELEVANT_LOCATION as well. This suggests we can just defer recursing into such directories until the end of collect_merge_info. Since the deferred directories are known to not add any relevant sources due to the above properties, then if there are no relevant sources after we've traversed all paths other than the deferred ones, then we know there are not any relevant sources. Under those conditions, rename detection is unnecessary, and that means we can resolve the deferred directories without recursing into them. Note that the logic for skipping rename detection was also modified further in commit 76e253793c ("merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible", 2021-01-30); in particular rename detection can be skipped if we already have cached renames for each relevant source. We can take advantage of this information as well with our deferral of recursing into directories where one side matches the merge base. Add some data structures that we will use to do these deferrals, with some lengthy comments explaining their purpose. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:33 +03:00
struct deferred_traversal_data deferred[3];
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
/*
* dir_rename_mask:
* 0: optimization removing unmodified potential rename source okay
* 2 or 4: optimization okay, but must check for files added to dir
* 7: optimization forbidden; need rename source in case of dir rename
*/
unsigned dir_rename_mask:3;
/*
* callback_data_*: supporting data structures for alternate traversal
*
* We sometimes need to be able to traverse through all the files
* in a given tree before all immediate subdirectories within that
* tree. Since traverse_trees() doesn't do that naturally, we have
* a traverse_trees_wrapper() that stores any immediate
* subdirectories while traversing files, then traverses the
* immediate subdirectories later. These callback_data* variables
* store the information for the subdirectories so that we can do
* that traversal order.
*/
struct traversal_callback_data *callback_data;
int callback_data_nr, callback_data_alloc;
char *callback_data_traverse_path;
merge-ort: add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused We need to know when renames detected in a previous merge operation can be reused in a later merge operation. Consider the following setup (from the git-rebase manpage): A---B---C topic / D---E---F---G master After rebasing, this will appear as: A'--B'--C' topic / D---E---F---G master Further, let's say that 'oldfile' was renamed to 'newfile' between E and G. The rebase or cherry-pick of A onto G will involve a three-way merge between E (as the merge base) and G and A. After detecting the rename between E:oldfile and G:newfile, there will be a three-way content merge of the following: E:oldfile G:newfile A:oldfile and produce a new result: A':newfile Now, when we want to pick B onto A', we will need to do a three-way merge between A (as the merge-base) and A' and B. This will involve a three-way content merge of A:oldfile A':newfile B:oldfile but only if we can detect that A:oldfile is similar enough to A':newfile to be used together in a three-way content merge, i.e. only if we can detect that A:oldfile and A':newfile are a rename. But we already know that A:oldfile and A':newfile are similar enough to be used in a three-way content merge, because that is precisely where A':newfile came from in the previous merge. Note that A & A' both appear in both merges. That gives us the condition under which we can reuse renames. There are a couple important points about this optimization: - If the rebase or cherry-pick halts for user conflicts, these caches are NOT saved anywhere. Thus, resuming a halted rebase or cherry-pick will result in no reused renames for the next commit. This is intentional, as user resolution can change files significantly and in ways that violate the similarity assumptions here. - Technically, in a *very* narrow case this might give slightly different results for rename detection. Using the example above, if: * E:oldfile had 20 lines * G:newfile added 10 new lines at the beginning of the file * A:oldfile deleted all but the first three lines of the file then => A':newfile would have 13 lines, 3 of which matches those in A:oldfile. Consider the two cases: * Without this optimization: - the next step of the rebase operation (moving B to B') would not detect the rename betwen A:oldfile and A':newfile - we'd thus get a modify/delete conflict with the rebase operation halting for the user to resolve, and have both A':newfile and B:oldfile sitting in the working tree. * With this optimization: - the rename between A:oldfile and A':newfile would be detected via the cache of renames - a three-way merge between A:oldfile, A':newfile, and B:oldfile would commence and be written to A':newfile Now, is the difference in behavior a bug...or a bugfix? I can't tell. Given that A:oldfile and A':newfile are not very similar, when we three-way merge with B:oldfile it seems likely we'll hit a conflict for the user to resolve. And it shouldn't be too hard for users to see why we did that three-way merge; oldfile and newfile *were* renames somewhere in the sequence. So, most of these corner cases will still behave similarly -- namely, a conflict given to the user to resolve. Also, consider the interesting case when commit B is a clean revert of commit A. Without this optimization, a rebase could not both apply a weird patch like A and then immediately revert it; users would be forced to resolve merge conflicts. With this optimization, it would successfully apply the clean revert. So, there is certainly at least one case that behaves better. Even if it's considered a "difference in behavior", I think both behaviors are reasonable, and the time savings provided by this optimization justify using the slightly altered rename heuristics. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:36 +03:00
/*
* merge_trees: trees passed to the merge algorithm for the merge
*
* merge_trees records the trees passed to the merge algorithm. But,
* this data also is stored in merge_result->priv. If a sequence of
* merges are being done (such as when cherry-picking or rebasing),
* the next merge can look at this and re-use information from
* previous merges under certain circumstances.
*
* See also all the cached_* variables.
*/
struct tree *merge_trees[3];
/*
* cached_pairs_valid_side: which side's cached info can be reused
*
* See the description for merge_trees. For repeated merges, at most
* only one side's cached information can be used. Valid values:
* MERGE_SIDE2: cached data from side2 can be reused
* MERGE_SIDE1: cached data from side1 can be reused
* 0: no cached data can be reused
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
* -1: See redo_after_renames; both sides can be reused.
merge-ort: add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused We need to know when renames detected in a previous merge operation can be reused in a later merge operation. Consider the following setup (from the git-rebase manpage): A---B---C topic / D---E---F---G master After rebasing, this will appear as: A'--B'--C' topic / D---E---F---G master Further, let's say that 'oldfile' was renamed to 'newfile' between E and G. The rebase or cherry-pick of A onto G will involve a three-way merge between E (as the merge base) and G and A. After detecting the rename between E:oldfile and G:newfile, there will be a three-way content merge of the following: E:oldfile G:newfile A:oldfile and produce a new result: A':newfile Now, when we want to pick B onto A', we will need to do a three-way merge between A (as the merge-base) and A' and B. This will involve a three-way content merge of A:oldfile A':newfile B:oldfile but only if we can detect that A:oldfile is similar enough to A':newfile to be used together in a three-way content merge, i.e. only if we can detect that A:oldfile and A':newfile are a rename. But we already know that A:oldfile and A':newfile are similar enough to be used in a three-way content merge, because that is precisely where A':newfile came from in the previous merge. Note that A & A' both appear in both merges. That gives us the condition under which we can reuse renames. There are a couple important points about this optimization: - If the rebase or cherry-pick halts for user conflicts, these caches are NOT saved anywhere. Thus, resuming a halted rebase or cherry-pick will result in no reused renames for the next commit. This is intentional, as user resolution can change files significantly and in ways that violate the similarity assumptions here. - Technically, in a *very* narrow case this might give slightly different results for rename detection. Using the example above, if: * E:oldfile had 20 lines * G:newfile added 10 new lines at the beginning of the file * A:oldfile deleted all but the first three lines of the file then => A':newfile would have 13 lines, 3 of which matches those in A:oldfile. Consider the two cases: * Without this optimization: - the next step of the rebase operation (moving B to B') would not detect the rename betwen A:oldfile and A':newfile - we'd thus get a modify/delete conflict with the rebase operation halting for the user to resolve, and have both A':newfile and B:oldfile sitting in the working tree. * With this optimization: - the rename between A:oldfile and A':newfile would be detected via the cache of renames - a three-way merge between A:oldfile, A':newfile, and B:oldfile would commence and be written to A':newfile Now, is the difference in behavior a bug...or a bugfix? I can't tell. Given that A:oldfile and A':newfile are not very similar, when we three-way merge with B:oldfile it seems likely we'll hit a conflict for the user to resolve. And it shouldn't be too hard for users to see why we did that three-way merge; oldfile and newfile *were* renames somewhere in the sequence. So, most of these corner cases will still behave similarly -- namely, a conflict given to the user to resolve. Also, consider the interesting case when commit B is a clean revert of commit A. Without this optimization, a rebase could not both apply a weird patch like A and then immediately revert it; users would be forced to resolve merge conflicts. With this optimization, it would successfully apply the clean revert. So, there is certainly at least one case that behaves better. Even if it's considered a "difference in behavior", I think both behaviors are reasonable, and the time savings provided by this optimization justify using the slightly altered rename heuristics. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:36 +03:00
*/
int cached_pairs_valid_side;
/*
* cached_pairs: Caching of renames and deletions.
*
* These are mappings recording renames and deletions of individual
* files (not directories). They are thus a map from an old
* filename to either NULL (for deletions) or a new filename (for
* renames).
*/
struct strmap cached_pairs[3];
/*
* cached_target_names: just the destinations from cached_pairs
*
* We sometimes want a fast lookup to determine if a given filename
* is one of the destinations in cached_pairs. cached_target_names
* is thus duplicative information, but it provides a fast lookup.
*/
struct strset cached_target_names[3];
/*
* cached_irrelevant: Caching of rename_sources that aren't relevant.
*
* If we try to detect a rename for a source path and succeed, it's
* part of a rename. If we try to detect a rename for a source path
* and fail, then it's a delete. If we do not try to detect a rename
* for a path, then we don't know if it's a rename or a delete. If
* merge-ort doesn't think the path is relevant, then we just won't
* cache anything for that path. But there's a slight problem in
* that merge-ort can think a path is RELEVANT_LOCATION, but due to
* commit 9bd342137e ("diffcore-rename: determine which
* relevant_sources are no longer relevant", 2021-03-13),
* diffcore-rename can downgrade the path to RELEVANT_NO_MORE. To
* avoid excessive calls to diffcore_rename_extended() we still need
* to cache such paths, though we cannot record them as either
* renames or deletes. So we cache them here as a "turned out to be
* irrelevant *for this commit*" as they are often also irrelevant
* for subsequent commits, though we will have to do some extra
* checking to see whether such paths become relevant for rename
* detection when cherry-picking/rebasing subsequent commits.
*/
struct strset cached_irrelevant[3];
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
/*
* redo_after_renames: optimization flag for "restarting" the merge
*
* Sometimes it pays to detect renames, cache them, and then
* restart the merge operation from the beginning. The reason for
* this is that when we know where all the renames are, we know
* whether a certain directory has any paths under it affected --
* and if a directory is not affected then it permits us to do
* trivial tree merging in more cases. Doing trivial tree merging
* prevents the need to run process_entry() on every path
* underneath trees that can be trivially merged, and
* process_entry() is more expensive than collect_merge_info() --
* plus, the second collect_merge_info() will be much faster since
* it doesn't have to recurse into the relevant trees.
*
* Values for this flag:
* 0 = don't bother, not worth it (or conditions not yet checked)
* 1 = conditions for optimization met, optimization worthwhile
* 2 = we already did it (don't restart merge yet again)
*/
unsigned redo_after_renames;
/*
* needed_limit: value needed for inexact rename detection to run
*
* If the current rename limit wasn't high enough for inexact
* rename detection to run, this records the limit needed. Otherwise,
* this value remains 0.
*/
int needed_limit;
};
struct merge_options_internal {
/*
* paths: primary data structure in all of merge ort.
*
* The keys of paths:
* * are full relative paths from the toplevel of the repository
* (e.g. "drivers/firmware/raspberrypi.c").
* * store all relevant paths in the repo, both directories and
* files (e.g. drivers, drivers/firmware would also be included)
* * these keys serve to intern all the path strings, which allows
* us to do pointer comparison on directory names instead of
* strcmp; we just have to be careful to use the interned strings.
* (Technically paths_to_free may track some strings that were
* removed from froms paths.)
*
* The values of paths:
* * either a pointer to a merged_info, or a conflict_info struct
* * merged_info contains all relevant information for a
* non-conflicted entry.
* * conflict_info contains a merged_info, plus any additional
* information about a conflict such as the higher orders stages
* involved and the names of the paths those came from (handy
* once renames get involved).
* * a path may start "conflicted" (i.e. point to a conflict_info)
* and then a later step (e.g. three-way content merge) determines
* it can be cleanly merged, at which point it'll be marked clean
* and the algorithm will ignore any data outside the contained
* merged_info for that entry
* * If an entry remains conflicted, the merged_info portion of a
* conflict_info will later be filled with whatever version of
* the file should be placed in the working directory (e.g. an
* as-merged-as-possible variation that contains conflict markers).
*/
struct strmap paths;
/*
* conflicted: a subset of keys->values from "paths"
*
* conflicted is basically an optimization between process_entries()
* and record_conflicted_index_entries(); the latter could loop over
* ALL the entries in paths AGAIN and look for the ones that are
* still conflicted, but since process_entries() has to loop over
* all of them, it saves the ones it couldn't resolve in this strmap
* so that record_conflicted_index_entries() can iterate just the
* relevant entries.
*/
struct strmap conflicted;
/*
* paths_to_free: additional list of strings to free
*
* If keys are removed from "paths", they are added to paths_to_free
* to ensure they are later freed. We avoid free'ing immediately since
* other places (e.g. conflict_info.pathnames[]) may still be
* referencing these paths.
*/
struct string_list paths_to_free;
merge-ort: add modify/delete handling and delayed output processing The focus here is on adding a path_msg() which will queue up warning/conflict/notice messages about the merge for later processing, storing these in a pathname -> strbuf map. It might seem like a big change, but it really just is: * declaration of necessary map with some comments * initialization and recording of data * a bunch of code to iterate over the map at print/free time * at least one caller in order to avoid an error about having an unused function (which we provide in the form of implementing modify/delete conflict handling). At this stage, it is probably not clear why I am opting for delayed output processing. There are multiple reasons: 1. Merges are supposed to abort if they would overwrite dirty changes in the working tree. We cannot correctly determine whether changes would be overwritten until both rename detection has occurred and full processing of entries with the renames has finalized. Warning/conflict/notice messages come up at intermediate codepaths along the way, so unless we want spurious conflict/warning messages being printed when the merge will be aborted anyway, we need to save these messages and only print them when relevant. 2. There can be multiple messages for a single path, and we want all messages for a give path to appear together instead of having them grouped by conflict/warning type. This was a problem already with merge-recursive.c but became even more important due to the splitting apart of conflict types as discussed in the commit message for 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) 3. Some callers might want to avoid showing the output in certain cases, such as if the end result is a clean merge. Rebases have typically done this. 4. Some callers might not want the output to go to stdout or even stderr, but might want to do something else with it entirely. For example, a --remerge-diff option to `git show` or `git log -p` that remerges on the fly and diffs merge commits against the remerged version would benefit from stdout/stderr not being written to in the standard form. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-03 18:59:46 +03:00
/*
* output: special messages and conflict notices for various paths
*
* This is a map of pathnames (a subset of the keys in "paths" above)
* to strbufs. It gathers various warning/conflict/notice messages
* for later processing.
*/
struct strmap output;
/*
* renames: various data relating to rename detection
*/
struct rename_info renames;
/*
* attr_index: hacky minimal index used for renormalization
*
* renormalization code _requires_ an index, though it only needs to
* find a .gitattributes file within the index. So, when
* renormalization is important, we create a special index with just
* that one file.
*/
struct index_state attr_index;
/*
* current_dir_name, toplevel_dir: temporary vars
*
* These are used in collect_merge_info_callback(), and will set the
* various merged_info.directory_name for the various paths we get;
* see documentation for that variable and the requirements placed on
* that field.
*/
const char *current_dir_name;
const char *toplevel_dir;
/* call_depth: recursion level counter for merging merge bases */
int call_depth;
};
struct version_info {
struct object_id oid;
unsigned short mode;
};
struct merged_info {
/* if is_null, ignore result. otherwise result has oid & mode */
struct version_info result;
unsigned is_null:1;
/*
* clean: whether the path in question is cleanly merged.
*
* see conflict_info.merged for more details.
*/
unsigned clean:1;
/*
* basename_offset: offset of basename of path.
*
* perf optimization to avoid recomputing offset of final '/'
* character in pathname (0 if no '/' in pathname).
*/
size_t basename_offset;
/*
* directory_name: containing directory name.
*
* Note that we assume directory_name is constructed such that
* strcmp(dir1_name, dir2_name) == 0 iff dir1_name == dir2_name,
* i.e. string equality is equivalent to pointer equality. For this
* to hold, we have to be careful setting directory_name.
*/
const char *directory_name;
};
struct conflict_info {
/*
* merged: the version of the path that will be written to working tree
*
* WARNING: It is critical to check merged.clean and ensure it is 0
* before reading any conflict_info fields outside of merged.
* Allocated merge_info structs will always have clean set to 1.
* Allocated conflict_info structs will have merged.clean set to 0
* initially. The merged.clean field is how we know if it is safe
* to access other parts of conflict_info besides merged; if a
* conflict_info's merged.clean is changed to 1, the rest of the
* algorithm is not allowed to look at anything outside of the
* merged member anymore.
*/
struct merged_info merged;
/* oids & modes from each of the three trees for this path */
struct version_info stages[3];
/* pathnames for each stage; may differ due to rename detection */
const char *pathnames[3];
/* Whether this path is/was involved in a directory/file conflict */
unsigned df_conflict:1;
/*
* Whether this path is/was involved in a non-content conflict other
* than a directory/file conflict (e.g. rename/rename, rename/delete,
* file location based on possible directory rename).
*/
unsigned path_conflict:1;
/*
* For filemask and dirmask, the ith bit corresponds to whether the
* ith entry is a file (filemask) or a directory (dirmask). Thus,
* filemask & dirmask is always zero, and filemask | dirmask is at
* most 7 but can be less when a path does not appear as either a
* file or a directory on at least one side of history.
*
* Note that these masks are related to enum merge_side, as the ith
* entry corresponds to side i.
*
* These values come from a traverse_trees() call; more info may be
* found looking at tree-walk.h's struct traverse_info,
* particularly the documentation above the "fn" member (note that
* filemask = mask & ~dirmask from that documentation).
*/
unsigned filemask:3;
unsigned dirmask:3;
/*
* Optimization to track which stages match, to avoid the need to
* recompute it in multiple steps. Either 0 or at least 2 bits are
* set; if at least 2 bits are set, their corresponding stages match.
*/
unsigned match_mask:3;
};
/*** Function Grouping: various utility functions ***/
/*
* For the next three macros, see warning for conflict_info.merged.
*
* In each of the below, mi is a struct merged_info*, and ci was defined
* as a struct conflict_info* (but we need to verify ci isn't actually
* pointed at a struct merged_info*).
*
* INITIALIZE_CI: Assign ci to mi but only if it's safe; set to NULL otherwise.
* VERIFY_CI: Ensure that something we assigned to a conflict_info* is one.
* ASSIGN_AND_VERIFY_CI: Similar to VERIFY_CI but do assignment first.
*/
#define INITIALIZE_CI(ci, mi) do { \
(ci) = (!(mi) || (mi)->clean) ? NULL : (struct conflict_info *)(mi); \
} while (0)
#define VERIFY_CI(ci) assert(ci && !ci->merged.clean);
#define ASSIGN_AND_VERIFY_CI(ci, mi) do { \
(ci) = (struct conflict_info *)(mi); \
assert((ci) && !(mi)->clean); \
} while (0)
static void free_strmap_strings(struct strmap *map)
{
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *entry;
strmap_for_each_entry(map, &iter, entry) {
free((char*)entry->key);
}
}
static void clear_or_reinit_internal_opts(struct merge_options_internal *opti,
int reinitialize)
{
struct rename_info *renames = &opti->renames;
int i;
void (*strmap_func)(struct strmap *, int) =
reinitialize ? strmap_partial_clear : strmap_clear;
void (*strintmap_func)(struct strintmap *) =
reinitialize ? strintmap_partial_clear : strintmap_clear;
void (*strset_func)(struct strset *) =
reinitialize ? strset_partial_clear : strset_clear;
/*
* We marked opti->paths with strdup_strings = 0, so that we
* wouldn't have to make another copy of the fullpath created by
* make_traverse_path from setup_path_info(). But, now that we've
* used it and have no other references to these strings, it is time
* to deallocate them.
*/
free_strmap_strings(&opti->paths);
strmap_func(&opti->paths, 1);
/*
* All keys and values in opti->conflicted are a subset of those in
* opti->paths. We don't want to deallocate anything twice, so we
* don't free the keys and we pass 0 for free_values.
*/
strmap_func(&opti->conflicted, 0);
/*
* opti->paths_to_free is similar to opti->paths; we created it with
* strdup_strings = 0 to avoid making _another_ copy of the fullpath
* but now that we've used it and have no other references to these
* strings, it is time to deallocate them. We do so by temporarily
* setting strdup_strings to 1.
*/
opti->paths_to_free.strdup_strings = 1;
string_list_clear(&opti->paths_to_free, 0);
opti->paths_to_free.strdup_strings = 0;
merge-ort: add modify/delete handling and delayed output processing The focus here is on adding a path_msg() which will queue up warning/conflict/notice messages about the merge for later processing, storing these in a pathname -> strbuf map. It might seem like a big change, but it really just is: * declaration of necessary map with some comments * initialization and recording of data * a bunch of code to iterate over the map at print/free time * at least one caller in order to avoid an error about having an unused function (which we provide in the form of implementing modify/delete conflict handling). At this stage, it is probably not clear why I am opting for delayed output processing. There are multiple reasons: 1. Merges are supposed to abort if they would overwrite dirty changes in the working tree. We cannot correctly determine whether changes would be overwritten until both rename detection has occurred and full processing of entries with the renames has finalized. Warning/conflict/notice messages come up at intermediate codepaths along the way, so unless we want spurious conflict/warning messages being printed when the merge will be aborted anyway, we need to save these messages and only print them when relevant. 2. There can be multiple messages for a single path, and we want all messages for a give path to appear together instead of having them grouped by conflict/warning type. This was a problem already with merge-recursive.c but became even more important due to the splitting apart of conflict types as discussed in the commit message for 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) 3. Some callers might want to avoid showing the output in certain cases, such as if the end result is a clean merge. Rebases have typically done this. 4. Some callers might not want the output to go to stdout or even stderr, but might want to do something else with it entirely. For example, a --remerge-diff option to `git show` or `git log -p` that remerges on the fly and diffs merge commits against the remerged version would benefit from stdout/stderr not being written to in the standard form. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-03 18:59:46 +03:00
merge-ort: have ll_merge() use a special attr_index for renormalization ll_merge() needs an index when renormalization is requested. Create one specifically for just this purpose with just the one needed entry. This fixes t6418.4 and t6418.5 under GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM=ort. NOTE 1: Even if the user has a working copy or a real index (which is not a given as merge-ort can be used in bare repositories), we explicitly ignore any .gitattributes file from either of these locations. merge-ort can be used to merge two branches that are unrelated to HEAD, so .gitattributes from the working copy and current index should not be considered relevant. NOTE 2: Since we are in the middle of merging, there is a risk that .gitattributes itself is conflicted...leaving us with an ill-defined situation about how to perform the rest of the merge. It could be that the .gitattributes file does not even exist on one of the sides of the merge, or that it has been modified on both sides. If it's been modified on both sides, it's possible that it could itself be merged cleanly, though it's also possible that it only merges cleanly if you use the right version of the .gitattributes file to drive the merge. It gets kind of complicated. The only test we ever had that attempted to test behavior in this area was seemingly unaware of the undefined behavior, but knew the test wouldn't work for lack of attribute handling support, marked it as test_expect_failure from the beginning, but managed to fail for several reasons unrelated to attribute handling. See commit 6f6e7cfb52 ("t6038: remove problematic test", 2020-08-03) for details. So there are probably various ways to improve what initialize_attr_index() picks in the case of a conflicted .gitattributes but for now I just implemented something simple -- look for whatever .gitattributes file we can find in any of the higher order stages and use it. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-20 03:03:46 +03:00
if (opti->attr_index.cache_nr) /* true iff opt->renormalize */
discard_index(&opti->attr_index);
/* Free memory used by various renames maps */
for (i = MERGE_SIDE1; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; ++i) {
strintmap_func(&renames->dirs_removed[i]);
strmap_func(&renames->dir_renames[i], 0);
strintmap_func(&renames->relevant_sources[i]);
if (!reinitialize)
assert(renames->cached_pairs_valid_side == 0);
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
if (i != renames->cached_pairs_valid_side &&
-1 != renames->cached_pairs_valid_side) {
strset_func(&renames->cached_target_names[i]);
strmap_func(&renames->cached_pairs[i], 1);
strset_func(&renames->cached_irrelevant[i]);
partial_clear_dir_rename_count(&renames->dir_rename_count[i]);
if (!reinitialize)
strmap_clear(&renames->dir_rename_count[i], 1);
}
}
merge-ort: add data structures for allowable trivial directory resolves As noted a few commits ago, we can resolve individual files early if all three sides of the merge have a file at the path and two of the three sides match. We would really like to do the same thing with directories, because being able to do a trivial directory resolve means we don't have to recurse into the directory, potentially saving us a huge amount of time in both collect_merge_info() and process_entries(). Unfortunately, resolving directories early would mean missing any renames whose source or destination is underneath that directory. If we somehow knew there weren't any renames under the directory in question, then we could resolve it early. Sadly, it is impossible to determine whether there are renames under the directory in question without recursing into it, and this has traditionally kept us from ever implementing such an optimization. In commit f89b4f2bee ("merge-ort: skip rename detection entirely if possible", 2021-03-11), we added an additional reason that rename detection could be skipped entirely -- namely, if no *relevant* sources were present. Without completing collect_merge_info_callback(), we do not yet know if there are no relevant sources. However, we do know that if the current directory on one side matches the merge base, then every source file within that directory will not be RELEVANT_CONTENT, and a few simple checks can often let us rule out RELEVANT_LOCATION as well. This suggests we can just defer recursing into such directories until the end of collect_merge_info. Since the deferred directories are known to not add any relevant sources due to the above properties, then if there are no relevant sources after we've traversed all paths other than the deferred ones, then we know there are not any relevant sources. Under those conditions, rename detection is unnecessary, and that means we can resolve the deferred directories without recursing into them. Note that the logic for skipping rename detection was also modified further in commit 76e253793c ("merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible", 2021-01-30); in particular rename detection can be skipped if we already have cached renames for each relevant source. We can take advantage of this information as well with our deferral of recursing into directories where one side matches the merge base. Add some data structures that we will use to do these deferrals, with some lengthy comments explaining their purpose. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:33 +03:00
for (i = MERGE_SIDE1; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; ++i) {
strintmap_func(&renames->deferred[i].possible_trivial_merges);
strset_func(&renames->deferred[i].target_dirs);
renames->deferred[i].trivial_merges_okay = 1; /* 1 == maybe */
}
merge-ort: add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused We need to know when renames detected in a previous merge operation can be reused in a later merge operation. Consider the following setup (from the git-rebase manpage): A---B---C topic / D---E---F---G master After rebasing, this will appear as: A'--B'--C' topic / D---E---F---G master Further, let's say that 'oldfile' was renamed to 'newfile' between E and G. The rebase or cherry-pick of A onto G will involve a three-way merge between E (as the merge base) and G and A. After detecting the rename between E:oldfile and G:newfile, there will be a three-way content merge of the following: E:oldfile G:newfile A:oldfile and produce a new result: A':newfile Now, when we want to pick B onto A', we will need to do a three-way merge between A (as the merge-base) and A' and B. This will involve a three-way content merge of A:oldfile A':newfile B:oldfile but only if we can detect that A:oldfile is similar enough to A':newfile to be used together in a three-way content merge, i.e. only if we can detect that A:oldfile and A':newfile are a rename. But we already know that A:oldfile and A':newfile are similar enough to be used in a three-way content merge, because that is precisely where A':newfile came from in the previous merge. Note that A & A' both appear in both merges. That gives us the condition under which we can reuse renames. There are a couple important points about this optimization: - If the rebase or cherry-pick halts for user conflicts, these caches are NOT saved anywhere. Thus, resuming a halted rebase or cherry-pick will result in no reused renames for the next commit. This is intentional, as user resolution can change files significantly and in ways that violate the similarity assumptions here. - Technically, in a *very* narrow case this might give slightly different results for rename detection. Using the example above, if: * E:oldfile had 20 lines * G:newfile added 10 new lines at the beginning of the file * A:oldfile deleted all but the first three lines of the file then => A':newfile would have 13 lines, 3 of which matches those in A:oldfile. Consider the two cases: * Without this optimization: - the next step of the rebase operation (moving B to B') would not detect the rename betwen A:oldfile and A':newfile - we'd thus get a modify/delete conflict with the rebase operation halting for the user to resolve, and have both A':newfile and B:oldfile sitting in the working tree. * With this optimization: - the rename between A:oldfile and A':newfile would be detected via the cache of renames - a three-way merge between A:oldfile, A':newfile, and B:oldfile would commence and be written to A':newfile Now, is the difference in behavior a bug...or a bugfix? I can't tell. Given that A:oldfile and A':newfile are not very similar, when we three-way merge with B:oldfile it seems likely we'll hit a conflict for the user to resolve. And it shouldn't be too hard for users to see why we did that three-way merge; oldfile and newfile *were* renames somewhere in the sequence. So, most of these corner cases will still behave similarly -- namely, a conflict given to the user to resolve. Also, consider the interesting case when commit B is a clean revert of commit A. Without this optimization, a rebase could not both apply a weird patch like A and then immediately revert it; users would be forced to resolve merge conflicts. With this optimization, it would successfully apply the clean revert. So, there is certainly at least one case that behaves better. Even if it's considered a "difference in behavior", I think both behaviors are reasonable, and the time savings provided by this optimization justify using the slightly altered rename heuristics. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:36 +03:00
renames->cached_pairs_valid_side = 0;
renames->dir_rename_mask = 0;
merge-ort: add modify/delete handling and delayed output processing The focus here is on adding a path_msg() which will queue up warning/conflict/notice messages about the merge for later processing, storing these in a pathname -> strbuf map. It might seem like a big change, but it really just is: * declaration of necessary map with some comments * initialization and recording of data * a bunch of code to iterate over the map at print/free time * at least one caller in order to avoid an error about having an unused function (which we provide in the form of implementing modify/delete conflict handling). At this stage, it is probably not clear why I am opting for delayed output processing. There are multiple reasons: 1. Merges are supposed to abort if they would overwrite dirty changes in the working tree. We cannot correctly determine whether changes would be overwritten until both rename detection has occurred and full processing of entries with the renames has finalized. Warning/conflict/notice messages come up at intermediate codepaths along the way, so unless we want spurious conflict/warning messages being printed when the merge will be aborted anyway, we need to save these messages and only print them when relevant. 2. There can be multiple messages for a single path, and we want all messages for a give path to appear together instead of having them grouped by conflict/warning type. This was a problem already with merge-recursive.c but became even more important due to the splitting apart of conflict types as discussed in the commit message for 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) 3. Some callers might want to avoid showing the output in certain cases, such as if the end result is a clean merge. Rebases have typically done this. 4. Some callers might not want the output to go to stdout or even stderr, but might want to do something else with it entirely. For example, a --remerge-diff option to `git show` or `git log -p` that remerges on the fly and diffs merge commits against the remerged version would benefit from stdout/stderr not being written to in the standard form. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-03 18:59:46 +03:00
if (!reinitialize) {
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *e;
/* Release and free each strbuf found in output */
strmap_for_each_entry(&opti->output, &iter, e) {
struct strbuf *sb = e->value;
strbuf_release(sb);
/*
* While strictly speaking we don't need to free(sb)
* here because we could pass free_values=1 when
* calling strmap_clear() on opti->output, that would
* require strmap_clear to do another
* strmap_for_each_entry() loop, so we just free it
* while we're iterating anyway.
*/
free(sb);
}
strmap_clear(&opti->output, 0);
}
/* Clean out callback_data as well. */
FREE_AND_NULL(renames->callback_data);
renames->callback_data_nr = renames->callback_data_alloc = 0;
}
__attribute__((format (printf, 2, 3)))
static int err(struct merge_options *opt, const char *err, ...)
{
va_list params;
struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
strbuf_addstr(&sb, "error: ");
va_start(params, err);
strbuf_vaddf(&sb, err, params);
va_end(params);
error("%s", sb.buf);
strbuf_release(&sb);
return -1;
}
static void format_commit(struct strbuf *sb,
int indent,
struct commit *commit)
{
struct merge_remote_desc *desc;
struct pretty_print_context ctx = {0};
ctx.abbrev = DEFAULT_ABBREV;
strbuf_addchars(sb, ' ', indent);
desc = merge_remote_util(commit);
if (desc) {
strbuf_addf(sb, "virtual %s\n", desc->name);
return;
}
format_commit_message(commit, "%h %s", sb, &ctx);
strbuf_addch(sb, '\n');
}
merge-ort: add modify/delete handling and delayed output processing The focus here is on adding a path_msg() which will queue up warning/conflict/notice messages about the merge for later processing, storing these in a pathname -> strbuf map. It might seem like a big change, but it really just is: * declaration of necessary map with some comments * initialization and recording of data * a bunch of code to iterate over the map at print/free time * at least one caller in order to avoid an error about having an unused function (which we provide in the form of implementing modify/delete conflict handling). At this stage, it is probably not clear why I am opting for delayed output processing. There are multiple reasons: 1. Merges are supposed to abort if they would overwrite dirty changes in the working tree. We cannot correctly determine whether changes would be overwritten until both rename detection has occurred and full processing of entries with the renames has finalized. Warning/conflict/notice messages come up at intermediate codepaths along the way, so unless we want spurious conflict/warning messages being printed when the merge will be aborted anyway, we need to save these messages and only print them when relevant. 2. There can be multiple messages for a single path, and we want all messages for a give path to appear together instead of having them grouped by conflict/warning type. This was a problem already with merge-recursive.c but became even more important due to the splitting apart of conflict types as discussed in the commit message for 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) 3. Some callers might want to avoid showing the output in certain cases, such as if the end result is a clean merge. Rebases have typically done this. 4. Some callers might not want the output to go to stdout or even stderr, but might want to do something else with it entirely. For example, a --remerge-diff option to `git show` or `git log -p` that remerges on the fly and diffs merge commits against the remerged version would benefit from stdout/stderr not being written to in the standard form. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-03 18:59:46 +03:00
__attribute__((format (printf, 4, 5)))
static void path_msg(struct merge_options *opt,
const char *path,
int omittable_hint, /* skippable under --remerge-diff */
const char *fmt, ...)
{
va_list ap;
struct strbuf *sb = strmap_get(&opt->priv->output, path);
if (!sb) {
sb = xmalloc(sizeof(*sb));
strbuf_init(sb, 0);
strmap_put(&opt->priv->output, path, sb);
}
va_start(ap, fmt);
strbuf_vaddf(sb, fmt, ap);
va_end(ap);
strbuf_addch(sb, '\n');
}
/* add a string to a strbuf, but converting "/" to "_" */
static void add_flattened_path(struct strbuf *out, const char *s)
{
size_t i = out->len;
strbuf_addstr(out, s);
for (; i < out->len; i++)
if (out->buf[i] == '/')
out->buf[i] = '_';
}
static char *unique_path(struct strmap *existing_paths,
const char *path,
const char *branch)
{
struct strbuf newpath = STRBUF_INIT;
int suffix = 0;
size_t base_len;
strbuf_addf(&newpath, "%s~", path);
add_flattened_path(&newpath, branch);
base_len = newpath.len;
while (strmap_contains(existing_paths, newpath.buf)) {
strbuf_setlen(&newpath, base_len);
strbuf_addf(&newpath, "_%d", suffix++);
}
return strbuf_detach(&newpath, NULL);
}
/*** Function Grouping: functions related to collect_merge_info() ***/
static int traverse_trees_wrapper_callback(int n,
unsigned long mask,
unsigned long dirmask,
struct name_entry *names,
struct traverse_info *info)
{
struct merge_options *opt = info->data;
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
unsigned filemask = mask & ~dirmask;
assert(n==3);
if (!renames->callback_data_traverse_path)
renames->callback_data_traverse_path = xstrdup(info->traverse_path);
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
if (filemask && filemask == renames->dir_rename_mask)
renames->dir_rename_mask = 0x07;
ALLOC_GROW(renames->callback_data, renames->callback_data_nr + 1,
renames->callback_data_alloc);
renames->callback_data[renames->callback_data_nr].mask = mask;
renames->callback_data[renames->callback_data_nr].dirmask = dirmask;
COPY_ARRAY(renames->callback_data[renames->callback_data_nr].names,
names, 3);
renames->callback_data_nr++;
return mask;
}
/*
* Much like traverse_trees(), BUT:
* - read all the tree entries FIRST, saving them
* - note that the above step provides an opportunity to compute necessary
* additional details before the "real" traversal
* - loop through the saved entries and call the original callback on them
*/
static int traverse_trees_wrapper(struct index_state *istate,
int n,
struct tree_desc *t,
struct traverse_info *info)
{
int ret, i, old_offset;
traverse_callback_t old_fn;
char *old_callback_data_traverse_path;
struct merge_options *opt = info->data;
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
assert(renames->dir_rename_mask == 2 || renames->dir_rename_mask == 4);
old_callback_data_traverse_path = renames->callback_data_traverse_path;
old_fn = info->fn;
old_offset = renames->callback_data_nr;
renames->callback_data_traverse_path = NULL;
info->fn = traverse_trees_wrapper_callback;
ret = traverse_trees(istate, n, t, info);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
info->traverse_path = renames->callback_data_traverse_path;
info->fn = old_fn;
for (i = old_offset; i < renames->callback_data_nr; ++i) {
info->fn(n,
renames->callback_data[i].mask,
renames->callback_data[i].dirmask,
renames->callback_data[i].names,
info);
}
renames->callback_data_nr = old_offset;
free(renames->callback_data_traverse_path);
renames->callback_data_traverse_path = old_callback_data_traverse_path;
info->traverse_path = NULL;
return 0;
}
static void setup_path_info(struct merge_options *opt,
struct string_list_item *result,
const char *current_dir_name,
int current_dir_name_len,
char *fullpath, /* we'll take over ownership */
struct name_entry *names,
struct name_entry *merged_version,
unsigned is_null, /* boolean */
unsigned df_conflict, /* boolean */
unsigned filemask,
unsigned dirmask,
int resolved /* boolean */)
{
/* result->util is void*, so mi is a convenience typed variable */
struct merged_info *mi;
assert(!is_null || resolved);
assert(!df_conflict || !resolved); /* df_conflict implies !resolved */
assert(resolved == (merged_version != NULL));
mi = xcalloc(1, resolved ? sizeof(struct merged_info) :
sizeof(struct conflict_info));
mi->directory_name = current_dir_name;
mi->basename_offset = current_dir_name_len;
mi->clean = !!resolved;
if (resolved) {
mi->result.mode = merged_version->mode;
oidcpy(&mi->result.oid, &merged_version->oid);
mi->is_null = !!is_null;
} else {
int i;
struct conflict_info *ci;
ASSIGN_AND_VERIFY_CI(ci, mi);
for (i = MERGE_BASE; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; i++) {
ci->pathnames[i] = fullpath;
ci->stages[i].mode = names[i].mode;
oidcpy(&ci->stages[i].oid, &names[i].oid);
}
ci->filemask = filemask;
ci->dirmask = dirmask;
ci->df_conflict = !!df_conflict;
if (dirmask)
/*
* Assume is_null for now, but if we have entries
* under the directory then when it is complete in
* write_completed_directory() it'll update this.
* Also, for D/F conflicts, we have to handle the
* directory first, then clear this bit and process
* the file to see how it is handled -- that occurs
* near the top of process_entry().
*/
mi->is_null = 1;
}
strmap_put(&opt->priv->paths, fullpath, mi);
result->string = fullpath;
result->util = mi;
}
merge-ort: call diffcore_rename() directly We want to pass additional information to diffcore_rename() (or some variant thereof) without plumbing that extra information through diff_tree_oid() and diffcore_std(). Further, since we will need to gather additional special information related to diffs and are walking the trees anyway in collect_merge_info(), it seems odd to have diff_tree_oid()/diffcore_std() repeat those tree walks. And there may be times where we can avoid traversing into a subtree in collect_merge_info() (based on additional information at our disposal), that the basic diff logic would be unable to take advantage of. For all these reasons, just create the add and delete pairs ourself and then call diffcore_rename() directly. This change is primarily about enabling future optimizations; the advantage of avoiding extra tree traversals is small compared to the cost of rename detection, and the advantage of avoiding the extra tree traversals is somewhat offset by the extra time spent in collect_merge_info() collecting the additional data anyway. However... For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 13.294 s ± 0.103 s 12.775 s ± 0.062 s mega-renames: 187.248 s ± 0.882 s 188.754 s ± 0.284 s just-one-mega: 5.557 s ± 0.017 s 5.599 s ± 0.019 s Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-02-14 10:51:51 +03:00
static void add_pair(struct merge_options *opt,
struct name_entry *names,
const char *pathname,
unsigned side,
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
unsigned is_add /* if false, is_delete */,
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
unsigned match_mask,
unsigned dir_rename_mask)
merge-ort: call diffcore_rename() directly We want to pass additional information to diffcore_rename() (or some variant thereof) without plumbing that extra information through diff_tree_oid() and diffcore_std(). Further, since we will need to gather additional special information related to diffs and are walking the trees anyway in collect_merge_info(), it seems odd to have diff_tree_oid()/diffcore_std() repeat those tree walks. And there may be times where we can avoid traversing into a subtree in collect_merge_info() (based on additional information at our disposal), that the basic diff logic would be unable to take advantage of. For all these reasons, just create the add and delete pairs ourself and then call diffcore_rename() directly. This change is primarily about enabling future optimizations; the advantage of avoiding extra tree traversals is small compared to the cost of rename detection, and the advantage of avoiding the extra tree traversals is somewhat offset by the extra time spent in collect_merge_info() collecting the additional data anyway. However... For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 13.294 s ± 0.103 s 12.775 s ± 0.062 s mega-renames: 187.248 s ± 0.882 s 188.754 s ± 0.284 s just-one-mega: 5.557 s ± 0.017 s 5.599 s ± 0.019 s Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-02-14 10:51:51 +03:00
{
struct diff_filespec *one, *two;
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
int names_idx = is_add ? side : 0;
merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible When there are many renames between the old base of a series of commits and the new base, the way sequencer.c, merge-recursive.c, and diffcore-rename.c have traditionally split the work resulted in redetecting the same renames with each and every commit being transplanted. To address this, the last several commits have been creating a cache of rename detection results, determining when it was safe to use such a cache in subsequent merge operations, adding helper functions, and so on. See the previous half dozen commit messages for additional discussion of this optimization, particularly the message a few commits ago entitled "add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused". This commit finally ties all of that work together, modifying the merge algorithm to make use of these cached renames. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.665 s ± 0.129 s 5.622 s ± 0.059 s mega-renames: 11.435 s ± 0.158 s 10.127 s ± 0.073 s just-one-mega: 494.2 ms ± 6.1 ms 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms That's a fairly small improvement, but mostly because the previous optimizations were so effective for these particular testcases; this optimization only kicks in when the others don't. If we undid the basename-guided rename detection and skip-irrelevant-renames optimizations, then we'd see that this series by itself improved performance as follows: Before Basename Series After Just This Series no-renames: 13.815 s ± 0.062 s 5.697 s ± 0.080 s mega-renames: 1799.937 s ± 0.493 s 205.709 s ± 0.457 s Since this optimization kicks in to help accelerate cases where the previous optimizations do not apply, this last comparison shows that this cached-renames optimization has the potential to help signficantly in cases that don't meet the requirements for the other optimizations to be effective. The changes made in this optimization also lay some important groundwork for a future optimization around having collect_merge_info() avoid recursing into subtrees in more cases. However, for this optimization to be effective, merge_switch_to_result() should only be called when the rebase or cherry-pick operation has either completed or hit a case where the user needs to resolve a conflict or edit the result. If it is called after every commit, as sequencer.c does, then the working tree and index are needlessly updated with every commit and the cached metadata is tossed, defeating this optimization. Refactoring sequencer.c to only call merge_switch_to_result() at the end of the operation is a bigger undertaking, and the practical benefits of this optimization will not be realized until that work is performed. Since `test-tool fast-rebase` only updates at the end of the operation, it was used to obtain the timings above. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:41 +03:00
if (is_add) {
assert(match_mask == 0 || match_mask == 6);
merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible When there are many renames between the old base of a series of commits and the new base, the way sequencer.c, merge-recursive.c, and diffcore-rename.c have traditionally split the work resulted in redetecting the same renames with each and every commit being transplanted. To address this, the last several commits have been creating a cache of rename detection results, determining when it was safe to use such a cache in subsequent merge operations, adding helper functions, and so on. See the previous half dozen commit messages for additional discussion of this optimization, particularly the message a few commits ago entitled "add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused". This commit finally ties all of that work together, modifying the merge algorithm to make use of these cached renames. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.665 s ± 0.129 s 5.622 s ± 0.059 s mega-renames: 11.435 s ± 0.158 s 10.127 s ± 0.073 s just-one-mega: 494.2 ms ± 6.1 ms 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms That's a fairly small improvement, but mostly because the previous optimizations were so effective for these particular testcases; this optimization only kicks in when the others don't. If we undid the basename-guided rename detection and skip-irrelevant-renames optimizations, then we'd see that this series by itself improved performance as follows: Before Basename Series After Just This Series no-renames: 13.815 s ± 0.062 s 5.697 s ± 0.080 s mega-renames: 1799.937 s ± 0.493 s 205.709 s ± 0.457 s Since this optimization kicks in to help accelerate cases where the previous optimizations do not apply, this last comparison shows that this cached-renames optimization has the potential to help signficantly in cases that don't meet the requirements for the other optimizations to be effective. The changes made in this optimization also lay some important groundwork for a future optimization around having collect_merge_info() avoid recursing into subtrees in more cases. However, for this optimization to be effective, merge_switch_to_result() should only be called when the rebase or cherry-pick operation has either completed or hit a case where the user needs to resolve a conflict or edit the result. If it is called after every commit, as sequencer.c does, then the working tree and index are needlessly updated with every commit and the cached metadata is tossed, defeating this optimization. Refactoring sequencer.c to only call merge_switch_to_result() at the end of the operation is a bigger undertaking, and the practical benefits of this optimization will not be realized until that work is performed. Since `test-tool fast-rebase` only updates at the end of the operation, it was used to obtain the timings above. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:41 +03:00
if (strset_contains(&renames->cached_target_names[side],
pathname))
return;
} else {
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
unsigned content_relevant = (match_mask == 0);
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
unsigned location_relevant = (dir_rename_mask == 0x07);
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
assert(match_mask == 0 || match_mask == 3 || match_mask == 5);
merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible When there are many renames between the old base of a series of commits and the new base, the way sequencer.c, merge-recursive.c, and diffcore-rename.c have traditionally split the work resulted in redetecting the same renames with each and every commit being transplanted. To address this, the last several commits have been creating a cache of rename detection results, determining when it was safe to use such a cache in subsequent merge operations, adding helper functions, and so on. See the previous half dozen commit messages for additional discussion of this optimization, particularly the message a few commits ago entitled "add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused". This commit finally ties all of that work together, modifying the merge algorithm to make use of these cached renames. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.665 s ± 0.129 s 5.622 s ± 0.059 s mega-renames: 11.435 s ± 0.158 s 10.127 s ± 0.073 s just-one-mega: 494.2 ms ± 6.1 ms 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms That's a fairly small improvement, but mostly because the previous optimizations were so effective for these particular testcases; this optimization only kicks in when the others don't. If we undid the basename-guided rename detection and skip-irrelevant-renames optimizations, then we'd see that this series by itself improved performance as follows: Before Basename Series After Just This Series no-renames: 13.815 s ± 0.062 s 5.697 s ± 0.080 s mega-renames: 1799.937 s ± 0.493 s 205.709 s ± 0.457 s Since this optimization kicks in to help accelerate cases where the previous optimizations do not apply, this last comparison shows that this cached-renames optimization has the potential to help signficantly in cases that don't meet the requirements for the other optimizations to be effective. The changes made in this optimization also lay some important groundwork for a future optimization around having collect_merge_info() avoid recursing into subtrees in more cases. However, for this optimization to be effective, merge_switch_to_result() should only be called when the rebase or cherry-pick operation has either completed or hit a case where the user needs to resolve a conflict or edit the result. If it is called after every commit, as sequencer.c does, then the working tree and index are needlessly updated with every commit and the cached metadata is tossed, defeating this optimization. Refactoring sequencer.c to only call merge_switch_to_result() at the end of the operation is a bigger undertaking, and the practical benefits of this optimization will not be realized until that work is performed. Since `test-tool fast-rebase` only updates at the end of the operation, it was used to obtain the timings above. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:41 +03:00
/*
* If pathname is found in cached_irrelevant[side] due to
* previous pick but for this commit content is relevant,
* then we need to remove it from cached_irrelevant.
*/
if (content_relevant)
/* strset_remove is no-op if strset doesn't have key */
strset_remove(&renames->cached_irrelevant[side],
pathname);
/*
* We do not need to re-detect renames for paths that we already
* know the pairing, i.e. for cached_pairs (or
* cached_irrelevant). However, handle_deferred_entries() needs
* to loop over the union of keys from relevant_sources[side] and
* cached_pairs[side], so for simplicity we set relevant_sources
* for all the cached_pairs too and then strip them back out in
* prune_cached_from_relevant() at the beginning of
* detect_regular_renames().
*/
if (content_relevant || location_relevant) {
/* content_relevant trumps location_relevant */
strintmap_set(&renames->relevant_sources[side], pathname,
content_relevant ? RELEVANT_CONTENT : RELEVANT_LOCATION);
}
merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible When there are many renames between the old base of a series of commits and the new base, the way sequencer.c, merge-recursive.c, and diffcore-rename.c have traditionally split the work resulted in redetecting the same renames with each and every commit being transplanted. To address this, the last several commits have been creating a cache of rename detection results, determining when it was safe to use such a cache in subsequent merge operations, adding helper functions, and so on. See the previous half dozen commit messages for additional discussion of this optimization, particularly the message a few commits ago entitled "add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused". This commit finally ties all of that work together, modifying the merge algorithm to make use of these cached renames. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.665 s ± 0.129 s 5.622 s ± 0.059 s mega-renames: 11.435 s ± 0.158 s 10.127 s ± 0.073 s just-one-mega: 494.2 ms ± 6.1 ms 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms That's a fairly small improvement, but mostly because the previous optimizations were so effective for these particular testcases; this optimization only kicks in when the others don't. If we undid the basename-guided rename detection and skip-irrelevant-renames optimizations, then we'd see that this series by itself improved performance as follows: Before Basename Series After Just This Series no-renames: 13.815 s ± 0.062 s 5.697 s ± 0.080 s mega-renames: 1799.937 s ± 0.493 s 205.709 s ± 0.457 s Since this optimization kicks in to help accelerate cases where the previous optimizations do not apply, this last comparison shows that this cached-renames optimization has the potential to help signficantly in cases that don't meet the requirements for the other optimizations to be effective. The changes made in this optimization also lay some important groundwork for a future optimization around having collect_merge_info() avoid recursing into subtrees in more cases. However, for this optimization to be effective, merge_switch_to_result() should only be called when the rebase or cherry-pick operation has either completed or hit a case where the user needs to resolve a conflict or edit the result. If it is called after every commit, as sequencer.c does, then the working tree and index are needlessly updated with every commit and the cached metadata is tossed, defeating this optimization. Refactoring sequencer.c to only call merge_switch_to_result() at the end of the operation is a bigger undertaking, and the practical benefits of this optimization will not be realized until that work is performed. Since `test-tool fast-rebase` only updates at the end of the operation, it was used to obtain the timings above. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:41 +03:00
/*
* Avoid creating pair if we've already cached rename results.
* Note that we do this after setting relevant_sources[side]
* as noted in the comment above.
*/
if (strmap_contains(&renames->cached_pairs[side], pathname) ||
strset_contains(&renames->cached_irrelevant[side], pathname))
return;
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
}
merge-ort: call diffcore_rename() directly We want to pass additional information to diffcore_rename() (or some variant thereof) without plumbing that extra information through diff_tree_oid() and diffcore_std(). Further, since we will need to gather additional special information related to diffs and are walking the trees anyway in collect_merge_info(), it seems odd to have diff_tree_oid()/diffcore_std() repeat those tree walks. And there may be times where we can avoid traversing into a subtree in collect_merge_info() (based on additional information at our disposal), that the basic diff logic would be unable to take advantage of. For all these reasons, just create the add and delete pairs ourself and then call diffcore_rename() directly. This change is primarily about enabling future optimizations; the advantage of avoiding extra tree traversals is small compared to the cost of rename detection, and the advantage of avoiding the extra tree traversals is somewhat offset by the extra time spent in collect_merge_info() collecting the additional data anyway. However... For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 13.294 s ± 0.103 s 12.775 s ± 0.062 s mega-renames: 187.248 s ± 0.882 s 188.754 s ± 0.284 s just-one-mega: 5.557 s ± 0.017 s 5.599 s ± 0.019 s Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-02-14 10:51:51 +03:00
one = alloc_filespec(pathname);
two = alloc_filespec(pathname);
fill_filespec(is_add ? two : one,
&names[names_idx].oid, 1, names[names_idx].mode);
diff_queue(&renames->pairs[side], one, two);
}
static void collect_rename_info(struct merge_options *opt,
struct name_entry *names,
const char *dirname,
const char *fullname,
unsigned filemask,
unsigned dirmask,
unsigned match_mask)
{
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
merge-ort: call diffcore_rename() directly We want to pass additional information to diffcore_rename() (or some variant thereof) without plumbing that extra information through diff_tree_oid() and diffcore_std(). Further, since we will need to gather additional special information related to diffs and are walking the trees anyway in collect_merge_info(), it seems odd to have diff_tree_oid()/diffcore_std() repeat those tree walks. And there may be times where we can avoid traversing into a subtree in collect_merge_info() (based on additional information at our disposal), that the basic diff logic would be unable to take advantage of. For all these reasons, just create the add and delete pairs ourself and then call diffcore_rename() directly. This change is primarily about enabling future optimizations; the advantage of avoiding extra tree traversals is small compared to the cost of rename detection, and the advantage of avoiding the extra tree traversals is somewhat offset by the extra time spent in collect_merge_info() collecting the additional data anyway. However... For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 13.294 s ± 0.103 s 12.775 s ± 0.062 s mega-renames: 187.248 s ± 0.882 s 188.754 s ± 0.284 s just-one-mega: 5.557 s ± 0.017 s 5.599 s ± 0.019 s Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-02-14 10:51:51 +03:00
unsigned side;
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
/*
* Update dir_rename_mask (determines ignore-rename-source validity)
*
* dir_rename_mask helps us keep track of when directory rename
* detection may be relevant. Basically, whenver a directory is
* removed on one side of history, and a file is added to that
* directory on the other side of history, directory rename
* detection is relevant (meaning we have to detect renames for all
* files within that directory to deduce where the directory
* moved). Also, whenever a directory needs directory rename
* detection, due to the "majority rules" choice for where to move
* it (see t6423 testcase 1f), we also need to detect renames for
* all files within subdirectories of that directory as well.
*
* Here we haven't looked at files within the directory yet, we are
* just looking at the directory itself. So, if we aren't yet in
* a case where a parent directory needed directory rename detection
* (i.e. dir_rename_mask != 0x07), and if the directory was removed
* on one side of history, record the mask of the other side of
* history in dir_rename_mask.
*/
if (renames->dir_rename_mask != 0x07 &&
(dirmask == 3 || dirmask == 5)) {
/* simple sanity check */
assert(renames->dir_rename_mask == 0 ||
renames->dir_rename_mask == (dirmask & ~1));
/* update dir_rename_mask; have it record mask of new side */
renames->dir_rename_mask = (dirmask & ~1);
}
/* Update dirs_removed, as needed */
if (dirmask == 1 || dirmask == 3 || dirmask == 5) {
/* absent_mask = 0x07 - dirmask; sides = absent_mask/2 */
unsigned sides = (0x07 - dirmask)/2;
unsigned relevance = (renames->dir_rename_mask == 0x07) ?
RELEVANT_FOR_ANCESTOR : NOT_RELEVANT;
/*
* Record relevance of this directory. However, note that
* when collect_merge_info_callback() recurses into this
* directory and calls collect_rename_info() on paths
* within that directory, if we find a path that was added
* to this directory on the other side of history, we will
* upgrade this value to RELEVANT_FOR_SELF; see below.
*/
if (sides & 1)
strintmap_set(&renames->dirs_removed[1], fullname,
relevance);
if (sides & 2)
strintmap_set(&renames->dirs_removed[2], fullname,
relevance);
}
/*
* Here's the block that potentially upgrades to RELEVANT_FOR_SELF.
* When we run across a file added to a directory. In such a case,
* find the directory of the file and upgrade its relevance.
*/
if (renames->dir_rename_mask == 0x07 &&
(filemask == 2 || filemask == 4)) {
/*
* Need directory rename for parent directory on other side
* of history from added file. Thus
* side = (~filemask & 0x06) >> 1
* or
* side = 3 - (filemask/2).
*/
unsigned side = 3 - (filemask >> 1);
strintmap_set(&renames->dirs_removed[side], dirname,
RELEVANT_FOR_SELF);
}
merge-ort: call diffcore_rename() directly We want to pass additional information to diffcore_rename() (or some variant thereof) without plumbing that extra information through diff_tree_oid() and diffcore_std(). Further, since we will need to gather additional special information related to diffs and are walking the trees anyway in collect_merge_info(), it seems odd to have diff_tree_oid()/diffcore_std() repeat those tree walks. And there may be times where we can avoid traversing into a subtree in collect_merge_info() (based on additional information at our disposal), that the basic diff logic would be unable to take advantage of. For all these reasons, just create the add and delete pairs ourself and then call diffcore_rename() directly. This change is primarily about enabling future optimizations; the advantage of avoiding extra tree traversals is small compared to the cost of rename detection, and the advantage of avoiding the extra tree traversals is somewhat offset by the extra time spent in collect_merge_info() collecting the additional data anyway. However... For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 13.294 s ± 0.103 s 12.775 s ± 0.062 s mega-renames: 187.248 s ± 0.882 s 188.754 s ± 0.284 s just-one-mega: 5.557 s ± 0.017 s 5.599 s ± 0.019 s Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-02-14 10:51:51 +03:00
if (filemask == 0 || filemask == 7)
return;
for (side = MERGE_SIDE1; side <= MERGE_SIDE2; ++side) {
unsigned side_mask = (1 << side);
/* Check for deletion on side */
if ((filemask & 1) && !(filemask & side_mask))
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
add_pair(opt, names, fullname, side, 0 /* delete */,
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
match_mask & filemask,
renames->dir_rename_mask);
merge-ort: call diffcore_rename() directly We want to pass additional information to diffcore_rename() (or some variant thereof) without plumbing that extra information through diff_tree_oid() and diffcore_std(). Further, since we will need to gather additional special information related to diffs and are walking the trees anyway in collect_merge_info(), it seems odd to have diff_tree_oid()/diffcore_std() repeat those tree walks. And there may be times where we can avoid traversing into a subtree in collect_merge_info() (based on additional information at our disposal), that the basic diff logic would be unable to take advantage of. For all these reasons, just create the add and delete pairs ourself and then call diffcore_rename() directly. This change is primarily about enabling future optimizations; the advantage of avoiding extra tree traversals is small compared to the cost of rename detection, and the advantage of avoiding the extra tree traversals is somewhat offset by the extra time spent in collect_merge_info() collecting the additional data anyway. However... For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 13.294 s ± 0.103 s 12.775 s ± 0.062 s mega-renames: 187.248 s ± 0.882 s 188.754 s ± 0.284 s just-one-mega: 5.557 s ± 0.017 s 5.599 s ± 0.019 s Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-02-14 10:51:51 +03:00
/* Check for addition on side */
if (!(filemask & 1) && (filemask & side_mask))
merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we need rename detection rename detection works by trying to pair all file deletions (or "sources") with all file additions (or "destinations"), checking similarity, and then marking the sufficiently similar ones as renames. This can be expensive if there are many sources and destinations on a given side of history as it results in an N x M comparison matrix. However, there are many cases where we can compute in advance that detecting renames for some of the sources provides no useful information and thus that we can exclude those sources from the matrix. To see why, first note that the merge machinery uses detected renames in two ways: * directory rename detection: when one side of history renames a directory, and the other side of history adds new files to that directory, we want to be able to warn the user about the need to chose whether those new files stay in the old directory or move to the new one. * three-way content merging: in order to do three-way content merging of files, we need three different file versions. If one side of history renamed a file, then some of the content for the file is found under a different path than in the merge base or on the other side of history. Add a simple testcase showing the two kinds of reasons renames are relevant; it's a testcase that will only pass if we detect both kinds of needed renames. Other than the testcase added above, this commit concentrates just on the three-way content merging; it will punt and mark all sources as needed for directory rename detection, and leave it to future commits to narrow that down more. The point of three-way content merging is to reconcile changes made on *both* sides of history. What if the file wasn't modified on both sides? There are two possibilities: * If it wasn't modified on the renamed side: -> then we get to do exact rename detection, which is cheap. * If it wasn't modified on the unrenamed side: -> then detection of a rename for that source file is irrelevant That latter claim might be surprising at first, so let's walk through a case to show why rename detection for that source file is irrelevant. Let's use two filenames, old.c & new.c, with the following abbreviated object ids (and where the value '000000' is used to denote that the file is missing in that commit): old.c new.c MERGE_BASE: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE1: 01d01d 000000 MERGE_SIDE2: 000000 5e1ec7 If the rename *isn't* detected: then old.c looks like it was unmodified on one side and deleted on the other and should thus be removed. new.c looks like a new file we should keep as-is. If the rename *is* detected: then a three-way content merge is done. Since the version of the file in MERGE_BASE and MERGE_SIDE1 are identical, the three-way merge will produce exactly the version of the file whose abbreviated object id is 5e1ec7. It will record that file at the path new.c, while removing old.c from the directory. Note that these two results are identical -- a single file named 'new.c' with object id 5e1ec7. In other words, it doesn't matter if the rename is detected in the case where the file is unmodified on the unrenamed side. Use this information to compute whether we need rename detection for each source created in add_pair(). It's probably worth noting that there used to be a few other edge or corner cases besides three-way content merges and directory rename detection where lack of rename detection could have affected the result, but those cases actually highlighted where conflict resolution methods were not consistent with each other. Fixing those inconsistencies were thus critically important to enabling this optimization. That work involved the following: * bringing consistency to add/add, rename/add, and rename/rename conflict types, as done back in the topic merged at commit ac193e0e0a ("Merge branch 'en/merge-path-collision'", 2019-01-04), and further extended in commits 2a7c16c980 ("t6422, t6426: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving renames", 2020-08-10) and e8eb99d4a6 ("t642[23]: be more flexible for add/add conflicts involving pair renames", 2020-08-10) * making rename/delete more consistent with modify/delete as done in commits 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) and 727c75b23f ("t6404, t6423: expect improved rename/delete handling in ort backend", 2020-10-26) Since the set of relevant_sources we compute has not yet been narrowed down for directory rename detection, we do not pass it to diffcore_rename_extended() yet. That will be done after subsequent commits narrow down the list of relevant_sources needed for directory rename detection reasons. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:25 +03:00
add_pair(opt, names, fullname, side, 1 /* add */,
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
match_mask & filemask,
renames->dir_rename_mask);
merge-ort: call diffcore_rename() directly We want to pass additional information to diffcore_rename() (or some variant thereof) without plumbing that extra information through diff_tree_oid() and diffcore_std(). Further, since we will need to gather additional special information related to diffs and are walking the trees anyway in collect_merge_info(), it seems odd to have diff_tree_oid()/diffcore_std() repeat those tree walks. And there may be times where we can avoid traversing into a subtree in collect_merge_info() (based on additional information at our disposal), that the basic diff logic would be unable to take advantage of. For all these reasons, just create the add and delete pairs ourself and then call diffcore_rename() directly. This change is primarily about enabling future optimizations; the advantage of avoiding extra tree traversals is small compared to the cost of rename detection, and the advantage of avoiding the extra tree traversals is somewhat offset by the extra time spent in collect_merge_info() collecting the additional data anyway. However... For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 13.294 s ± 0.103 s 12.775 s ± 0.062 s mega-renames: 187.248 s ± 0.882 s 188.754 s ± 0.284 s just-one-mega: 5.557 s ± 0.017 s 5.599 s ± 0.019 s Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-02-14 10:51:51 +03:00
}
}
static int collect_merge_info_callback(int n,
unsigned long mask,
unsigned long dirmask,
struct name_entry *names,
struct traverse_info *info)
{
/*
* n is 3. Always.
* common ancestor (mbase) has mask 1, and stored in index 0 of names
* head of side 1 (side1) has mask 2, and stored in index 1 of names
* head of side 2 (side2) has mask 4, and stored in index 2 of names
*/
struct merge_options *opt = info->data;
struct merge_options_internal *opti = opt->priv;
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
struct string_list_item pi; /* Path Info */
struct conflict_info *ci; /* typed alias to pi.util (which is void*) */
struct name_entry *p;
size_t len;
char *fullpath;
const char *dirname = opti->current_dir_name;
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
unsigned prev_dir_rename_mask = renames->dir_rename_mask;
unsigned filemask = mask & ~dirmask;
unsigned match_mask = 0; /* will be updated below */
unsigned mbase_null = !(mask & 1);
unsigned side1_null = !(mask & 2);
unsigned side2_null = !(mask & 4);
unsigned side1_matches_mbase = (!side1_null && !mbase_null &&
names[0].mode == names[1].mode &&
oideq(&names[0].oid, &names[1].oid));
unsigned side2_matches_mbase = (!side2_null && !mbase_null &&
names[0].mode == names[2].mode &&
oideq(&names[0].oid, &names[2].oid));
unsigned sides_match = (!side1_null && !side2_null &&
names[1].mode == names[2].mode &&
oideq(&names[1].oid, &names[2].oid));
/*
* Note: When a path is a file on one side of history and a directory
* in another, we have a directory/file conflict. In such cases, if
* the conflict doesn't resolve from renames and deletions, then we
* always leave directories where they are and move files out of the
* way. Thus, while struct conflict_info has a df_conflict field to
* track such conflicts, we ignore that field for any directories at
* a path and only pay attention to it for files at the given path.
* The fact that we leave directories were they are also means that
* we do not need to worry about getting additional df_conflict
* information propagated from parent directories down to children
* (unlike, say traverse_trees_recursive() in unpack-trees.c, which
* sets a newinfo.df_conflicts field specifically to propagate it).
*/
unsigned df_conflict = (filemask != 0) && (dirmask != 0);
/* n = 3 is a fundamental assumption. */
if (n != 3)
BUG("Called collect_merge_info_callback wrong");
/*
* A bunch of sanity checks verifying that traverse_trees() calls
* us the way I expect. Could just remove these at some point,
* though maybe they are helpful to future code readers.
*/
assert(mbase_null == is_null_oid(&names[0].oid));
assert(side1_null == is_null_oid(&names[1].oid));
assert(side2_null == is_null_oid(&names[2].oid));
assert(!mbase_null || !side1_null || !side2_null);
assert(mask > 0 && mask < 8);
/* Determine match_mask */
if (side1_matches_mbase)
match_mask = (side2_matches_mbase ? 7 : 3);
else if (side2_matches_mbase)
match_mask = 5;
else if (sides_match)
match_mask = 6;
/*
* Get the name of the relevant filepath, which we'll pass to
* setup_path_info() for tracking.
*/
p = names;
while (!p->mode)
p++;
len = traverse_path_len(info, p->pathlen);
/* +1 in both of the following lines to include the NUL byte */
fullpath = xmalloc(len + 1);
make_traverse_path(fullpath, len + 1, info, p->path, p->pathlen);
/*
* If mbase, side1, and side2 all match, we can resolve early. Even
* if these are trees, there will be no renames or anything
* underneath.
*/
if (side1_matches_mbase && side2_matches_mbase) {
/* mbase, side1, & side2 all match; use mbase as resolution */
setup_path_info(opt, &pi, dirname, info->pathlen, fullpath,
names, names+0, mbase_null, 0 /* df_conflict */,
filemask, dirmask, 1 /* resolved */);
return mask;
}
/*
* If the sides match, and all three paths are present and are
* files, then we can take either as the resolution. We can't do
* this with trees, because there may be rename sources from the
* merge_base.
*/
if (sides_match && filemask == 0x07) {
/* use side1 (== side2) version as resolution */
setup_path_info(opt, &pi, dirname, info->pathlen, fullpath,
names, names+1, side1_null, 0,
filemask, dirmask, 1);
return mask;
}
/*
* If side1 matches mbase and all three paths are present and are
* files, then we can use side2 as the resolution. We cannot
* necessarily do so this for trees, because there may be rename
* destinations within side2.
*/
if (side1_matches_mbase && filemask == 0x07) {
/* use side2 version as resolution */
setup_path_info(opt, &pi, dirname, info->pathlen, fullpath,
names, names+2, side2_null, 0,
filemask, dirmask, 1);
return mask;
}
/* Similar to above but swapping sides 1 and 2 */
if (side2_matches_mbase && filemask == 0x07) {
/* use side1 version as resolution */
setup_path_info(opt, &pi, dirname, info->pathlen, fullpath,
names, names+1, side1_null, 0,
filemask, dirmask, 1);
return mask;
}
/*
* Sometimes we can tell that a source path need not be included in
* rename detection -- namely, whenever either
* side1_matches_mbase && side2_null
* or
* side2_matches_mbase && side1_null
* However, we call collect_rename_info() even in those cases,
* because exact renames are cheap and would let us remove both a
* source and destination path. We'll cull the unneeded sources
* later.
*/
collect_rename_info(opt, names, dirname, fullpath,
filemask, dirmask, match_mask);
/*
* None of the special cases above matched, so we have a
* provisional conflict. (Rename detection might allow us to
* unconflict some more cases, but that comes later so all we can
* do now is record the different non-null file hashes.)
*/
setup_path_info(opt, &pi, dirname, info->pathlen, fullpath,
names, NULL, 0, df_conflict, filemask, dirmask, 0);
ci = pi.util;
VERIFY_CI(ci);
ci->match_mask = match_mask;
/* If dirmask, recurse into subdirectories */
if (dirmask) {
struct traverse_info newinfo;
struct tree_desc t[3];
void *buf[3] = {NULL, NULL, NULL};
const char *original_dir_name;
int i, ret, side;
/*
* Check for whether we can avoid recursing due to one side
* matching the merge base. The side that does NOT match is
* the one that might have a rename destination we need.
*/
assert(!side1_matches_mbase || !side2_matches_mbase);
side = side1_matches_mbase ? MERGE_SIDE2 :
side2_matches_mbase ? MERGE_SIDE1 : MERGE_BASE;
if (filemask == 0 && (dirmask == 2 || dirmask == 4)) {
/*
* Also defer recursing into new directories; set up a
* few variables to let us do so.
*/
ci->match_mask = (7 - dirmask);
side = dirmask / 2;
}
if (renames->dir_rename_mask != 0x07 &&
side != MERGE_BASE &&
renames->deferred[side].trivial_merges_okay &&
!strset_contains(&renames->deferred[side].target_dirs,
pi.string)) {
strintmap_set(&renames->deferred[side].possible_trivial_merges,
pi.string, renames->dir_rename_mask);
renames->dir_rename_mask = prev_dir_rename_mask;
return mask;
}
/* We need to recurse */
ci->match_mask &= filemask;
newinfo = *info;
newinfo.prev = info;
newinfo.name = p->path;
newinfo.namelen = p->pathlen;
newinfo.pathlen = st_add3(newinfo.pathlen, p->pathlen, 1);
/*
* If this directory we are about to recurse into cared about
* its parent directory (the current directory) having a D/F
* conflict, then we'd propagate the masks in this way:
* newinfo.df_conflicts |= (mask & ~dirmask);
* But we don't worry about propagating D/F conflicts. (See
* comment near setting of local df_conflict variable near
* the beginning of this function).
*/
for (i = MERGE_BASE; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; i++) {
if (i == 1 && side1_matches_mbase)
t[1] = t[0];
else if (i == 2 && side2_matches_mbase)
t[2] = t[0];
else if (i == 2 && sides_match)
t[2] = t[1];
else {
const struct object_id *oid = NULL;
if (dirmask & 1)
oid = &names[i].oid;
buf[i] = fill_tree_descriptor(opt->repo,
t + i, oid);
}
dirmask >>= 1;
}
original_dir_name = opti->current_dir_name;
opti->current_dir_name = pi.string;
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
if (renames->dir_rename_mask == 0 ||
renames->dir_rename_mask == 0x07)
ret = traverse_trees(NULL, 3, t, &newinfo);
else
ret = traverse_trees_wrapper(NULL, 3, t, &newinfo);
opti->current_dir_name = original_dir_name;
merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename detection is needed The point of directory rename detection is that if one side of history renames a directory, and the other side adds new files under the old directory, then the merge can move those new files into the new directory. This leads to the following important observation: * If the other side does not add any new files under the old directory, we do not need to detect any renames for that directory. Similarly, directory rename detection had an important requirement: * If a directory still exists on one side of history, it has not been renamed on that side of history. (See section 4 of t6423 or Documentation/technical/directory-rename-detection.txt for more details). Using these two bits of information, we note that directory rename detection is only needed in cases where (1) directories exist in the merge base and on one side of history (i.e. dirmask == 3 or dirmask == 5), and (2) where there is some new file added to that directory on the side where it still exists (thus where the file has filemask == 2 or filemask == 4, respectively). This has to be done in two steps, because we have the dirmask when we are first considering the directory, and won't get the filemasks for the files within it until we recurse into that directory. So, we save dir_rename_mask = dirmask - 1 when we hit a directory that is missing on one side, and then later look for cases of filemask == dir_rename_mask One final note is that as soon as we hit a directory that needs directory rename detection, we will need to detect renames in all subdirectories of that directory as well due to the "majority rules" decision when files are renamed into different directory hierarchies. We arbitrarily use the special value of 0x07 to record when we've hit such a directory. The combination of all the above mean that we introduce a variable named dir_rename_mask (couldn't think of a better name) which has one of the following values as we traverse into a directory: * 0x00: directory rename detection not needed * 0x02 or 0x04: directory rename detection only needed if files added * 0x07: directory rename detection definitely needed We then pass this value through to add_pairs() so that it can mark location_relevant as true only when dir_rename_mask is 0x07. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-11 03:38:28 +03:00
renames->dir_rename_mask = prev_dir_rename_mask;
for (i = MERGE_BASE; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; i++)
free(buf[i]);
if (ret < 0)
return -1;
}
return mask;
}
merge-ort: avoid recursing into directories when we don't need to This combines the work of the last several patches, and implements the conditions when we don't need to recurse into directories. It's perhaps easiest to see the logic by separating the fact that a directory might have both rename sources and rename destinations: * rename sources: only files present in the merge base can serve as rename sources, and only when one side deletes that file. When the tree on one side matches the merge base, that means every file within the subtree matches the merge base. This means that the skip-irrelevant-rename-detection optimization from before kicks in and we don't need any of these files as rename sources. * rename destinations: the tree that does not match the merge base might have newly added and hence unmatched destination files. This is what usually prevents us from doing trivial directory resolutions in the merge machinery. However, the fact that we have deferred recursing into this directory until the end means we know whether there are any unmatched relevant potential rename sources elsewhere in this merge. If there are no unmatched such relevant sources anywhere, then there is no need to look for unmatched potential rename destinations to match them with. This informs our algorithm: * Search through relevant_sources; if we have entries, they better all be reflected in cached_pairs or cached_irrelevant, otherwise they represent an unmatched potential rename source (causing the optimization to be disallowed). * For any relevant_source represented in cached_pairs, we do need to to make sure to get the destination for each source, meaning we need to recurse into any ancestor directories of those destinations. * Once we've recursed into all the rename destinations for any relevant_sources in cached_pairs, we can then do the trivial directory resolution for the remaining directories. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.235 s ± 0.042 s 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms mega-renames: 9.419 s ± 0.107 s 1.564 s ± 0.010 s just-one-mega: 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:36 +03:00
static void resolve_trivial_directory_merge(struct conflict_info *ci, int side)
{
VERIFY_CI(ci);
assert((side == 1 && ci->match_mask == 5) ||
(side == 2 && ci->match_mask == 3));
oidcpy(&ci->merged.result.oid, &ci->stages[side].oid);
ci->merged.result.mode = ci->stages[side].mode;
ci->merged.is_null = is_null_oid(&ci->stages[side].oid);
ci->match_mask = 0;
ci->merged.clean = 1; /* (ci->filemask == 0); */
}
static int handle_deferred_entries(struct merge_options *opt,
struct traverse_info *info)
{
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *entry;
int side, ret = 0;
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
int path_count_before, path_count_after = 0;
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
path_count_before = strmap_get_size(&opt->priv->paths);
for (side = MERGE_SIDE1; side <= MERGE_SIDE2; side++) {
merge-ort: avoid recursing into directories when we don't need to This combines the work of the last several patches, and implements the conditions when we don't need to recurse into directories. It's perhaps easiest to see the logic by separating the fact that a directory might have both rename sources and rename destinations: * rename sources: only files present in the merge base can serve as rename sources, and only when one side deletes that file. When the tree on one side matches the merge base, that means every file within the subtree matches the merge base. This means that the skip-irrelevant-rename-detection optimization from before kicks in and we don't need any of these files as rename sources. * rename destinations: the tree that does not match the merge base might have newly added and hence unmatched destination files. This is what usually prevents us from doing trivial directory resolutions in the merge machinery. However, the fact that we have deferred recursing into this directory until the end means we know whether there are any unmatched relevant potential rename sources elsewhere in this merge. If there are no unmatched such relevant sources anywhere, then there is no need to look for unmatched potential rename destinations to match them with. This informs our algorithm: * Search through relevant_sources; if we have entries, they better all be reflected in cached_pairs or cached_irrelevant, otherwise they represent an unmatched potential rename source (causing the optimization to be disallowed). * For any relevant_source represented in cached_pairs, we do need to to make sure to get the destination for each source, meaning we need to recurse into any ancestor directories of those destinations. * Once we've recursed into all the rename destinations for any relevant_sources in cached_pairs, we can then do the trivial directory resolution for the remaining directories. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.235 s ± 0.042 s 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms mega-renames: 9.419 s ± 0.107 s 1.564 s ± 0.010 s just-one-mega: 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:36 +03:00
unsigned optimization_okay = 1;
struct strintmap copy;
/* Loop over the set of paths we need to know rename info for */
strset_for_each_entry(&renames->relevant_sources[side],
&iter, entry) {
char *rename_target, *dir, *dir_marker;
struct strmap_entry *e;
/*
* If we don't know delete/rename info for this path,
* then we need to recurse into all trees to get all
* adds to make sure we have it.
*/
if (strset_contains(&renames->cached_irrelevant[side],
entry->key))
continue;
e = strmap_get_entry(&renames->cached_pairs[side],
entry->key);
if (!e) {
optimization_okay = 0;
break;
}
/* If this is a delete, we have enough info already */
rename_target = e->value;
if (!rename_target)
continue;
/* If we already walked the rename target, we're good */
if (strmap_contains(&opt->priv->paths, rename_target))
continue;
/*
* Otherwise, we need to get a list of directories that
* will need to be recursed into to get this
* rename_target.
*/
dir = xstrdup(rename_target);
while ((dir_marker = strrchr(dir, '/'))) {
*dir_marker = '\0';
if (strset_contains(&renames->deferred[side].target_dirs,
dir))
break;
strset_add(&renames->deferred[side].target_dirs,
dir);
}
free(dir);
}
renames->deferred[side].trivial_merges_okay = optimization_okay;
/*
* We need to recurse into any directories in
* possible_trivial_merges[side] found in target_dirs[side].
* But when we recurse, we may need to queue up some of the
* subdirectories for possible_trivial_merges[side]. Since
* we can't safely iterate through a hashmap while also adding
* entries, move the entries into 'copy', iterate over 'copy',
* and then we'll also iterate anything added into
* possible_trivial_merges[side] once this loop is done.
*/
copy = renames->deferred[side].possible_trivial_merges;
strintmap_init_with_options(&renames->deferred[side].possible_trivial_merges,
0,
NULL,
0);
strintmap_for_each_entry(&copy, &iter, entry) {
const char *path = entry->key;
unsigned dir_rename_mask = (intptr_t)entry->value;
struct conflict_info *ci;
unsigned dirmask;
struct tree_desc t[3];
void *buf[3] = {NULL,};
int i;
ci = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, path);
VERIFY_CI(ci);
dirmask = ci->dirmask;
merge-ort: avoid recursing into directories when we don't need to This combines the work of the last several patches, and implements the conditions when we don't need to recurse into directories. It's perhaps easiest to see the logic by separating the fact that a directory might have both rename sources and rename destinations: * rename sources: only files present in the merge base can serve as rename sources, and only when one side deletes that file. When the tree on one side matches the merge base, that means every file within the subtree matches the merge base. This means that the skip-irrelevant-rename-detection optimization from before kicks in and we don't need any of these files as rename sources. * rename destinations: the tree that does not match the merge base might have newly added and hence unmatched destination files. This is what usually prevents us from doing trivial directory resolutions in the merge machinery. However, the fact that we have deferred recursing into this directory until the end means we know whether there are any unmatched relevant potential rename sources elsewhere in this merge. If there are no unmatched such relevant sources anywhere, then there is no need to look for unmatched potential rename destinations to match them with. This informs our algorithm: * Search through relevant_sources; if we have entries, they better all be reflected in cached_pairs or cached_irrelevant, otherwise they represent an unmatched potential rename source (causing the optimization to be disallowed). * For any relevant_source represented in cached_pairs, we do need to to make sure to get the destination for each source, meaning we need to recurse into any ancestor directories of those destinations. * Once we've recursed into all the rename destinations for any relevant_sources in cached_pairs, we can then do the trivial directory resolution for the remaining directories. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.235 s ± 0.042 s 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms mega-renames: 9.419 s ± 0.107 s 1.564 s ± 0.010 s just-one-mega: 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:36 +03:00
if (optimization_okay &&
!strset_contains(&renames->deferred[side].target_dirs,
path)) {
resolve_trivial_directory_merge(ci, side);
continue;
}
info->name = path;
info->namelen = strlen(path);
info->pathlen = info->namelen + 1;
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++, dirmask >>= 1) {
if (i == 1 && ci->match_mask == 3)
t[1] = t[0];
else if (i == 2 && ci->match_mask == 5)
t[2] = t[0];
else if (i == 2 && ci->match_mask == 6)
t[2] = t[1];
else {
const struct object_id *oid = NULL;
if (dirmask & 1)
oid = &ci->stages[i].oid;
buf[i] = fill_tree_descriptor(opt->repo,
t+i, oid);
}
}
ci->match_mask &= ci->filemask;
opt->priv->current_dir_name = path;
renames->dir_rename_mask = dir_rename_mask;
if (renames->dir_rename_mask == 0 ||
renames->dir_rename_mask == 0x07)
ret = traverse_trees(NULL, 3, t, info);
else
ret = traverse_trees_wrapper(NULL, 3, t, info);
for (i = MERGE_BASE; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; i++)
free(buf[i]);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
}
merge-ort: avoid recursing into directories when we don't need to This combines the work of the last several patches, and implements the conditions when we don't need to recurse into directories. It's perhaps easiest to see the logic by separating the fact that a directory might have both rename sources and rename destinations: * rename sources: only files present in the merge base can serve as rename sources, and only when one side deletes that file. When the tree on one side matches the merge base, that means every file within the subtree matches the merge base. This means that the skip-irrelevant-rename-detection optimization from before kicks in and we don't need any of these files as rename sources. * rename destinations: the tree that does not match the merge base might have newly added and hence unmatched destination files. This is what usually prevents us from doing trivial directory resolutions in the merge machinery. However, the fact that we have deferred recursing into this directory until the end means we know whether there are any unmatched relevant potential rename sources elsewhere in this merge. If there are no unmatched such relevant sources anywhere, then there is no need to look for unmatched potential rename destinations to match them with. This informs our algorithm: * Search through relevant_sources; if we have entries, they better all be reflected in cached_pairs or cached_irrelevant, otherwise they represent an unmatched potential rename source (causing the optimization to be disallowed). * For any relevant_source represented in cached_pairs, we do need to to make sure to get the destination for each source, meaning we need to recurse into any ancestor directories of those destinations. * Once we've recursed into all the rename destinations for any relevant_sources in cached_pairs, we can then do the trivial directory resolution for the remaining directories. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.235 s ± 0.042 s 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms mega-renames: 9.419 s ± 0.107 s 1.564 s ± 0.010 s just-one-mega: 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:36 +03:00
strintmap_clear(&copy);
strintmap_for_each_entry(&renames->deferred[side].possible_trivial_merges,
&iter, entry) {
const char *path = entry->key;
struct conflict_info *ci;
ci = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, path);
VERIFY_CI(ci);
assert(renames->deferred[side].trivial_merges_okay &&
!strset_contains(&renames->deferred[side].target_dirs,
path));
resolve_trivial_directory_merge(ci, side);
}
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
if (!optimization_okay || path_count_after)
path_count_after = strmap_get_size(&opt->priv->paths);
}
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
if (path_count_after) {
/*
* The choice of wanted_factor here does not affect
* correctness, only performance. When the
* path_count_after / path_count_before
* ratio is high, redoing after renames is a big
* performance boost. I suspect that redoing is a wash
* somewhere near a value of 2, and below that redoing will
* slow things down. I applied a fudge factor and picked
* 3; see the commit message when this was introduced for
* back of the envelope calculations for this ratio.
*/
const int wanted_factor = 3;
/* We should only redo collect_merge_info one time */
assert(renames->redo_after_renames == 0);
if (path_count_after / path_count_before >= wanted_factor) {
renames->redo_after_renames = 1;
renames->cached_pairs_valid_side = -1;
}
} else if (renames->redo_after_renames == 2)
renames->redo_after_renames = 0;
return ret;
}
static int collect_merge_info(struct merge_options *opt,
struct tree *merge_base,
struct tree *side1,
struct tree *side2)
{
int ret;
struct tree_desc t[3];
struct traverse_info info;
opt->priv->toplevel_dir = "";
opt->priv->current_dir_name = opt->priv->toplevel_dir;
setup_traverse_info(&info, opt->priv->toplevel_dir);
info.fn = collect_merge_info_callback;
info.data = opt;
info.show_all_errors = 1;
parse_tree(merge_base);
parse_tree(side1);
parse_tree(side2);
init_tree_desc(t + 0, merge_base->buffer, merge_base->size);
init_tree_desc(t + 1, side1->buffer, side1->size);
init_tree_desc(t + 2, side2->buffer, side2->size);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "traverse_trees", opt->repo);
ret = traverse_trees(NULL, 3, t, &info);
if (ret == 0)
ret = handle_deferred_entries(opt, &info);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "traverse_trees", opt->repo);
return ret;
}
/*** Function Grouping: functions related to threeway content merges ***/
static int find_first_merges(struct repository *repo,
const char *path,
struct commit *a,
struct commit *b,
struct object_array *result)
{
int i, j;
struct object_array merges = OBJECT_ARRAY_INIT;
struct commit *commit;
int contains_another;
char merged_revision[GIT_MAX_HEXSZ + 2];
const char *rev_args[] = { "rev-list", "--merges", "--ancestry-path",
"--all", merged_revision, NULL };
struct rev_info revs;
struct setup_revision_opt rev_opts;
memset(result, 0, sizeof(struct object_array));
memset(&rev_opts, 0, sizeof(rev_opts));
/* get all revisions that merge commit a */
xsnprintf(merged_revision, sizeof(merged_revision), "^%s",
oid_to_hex(&a->object.oid));
repo_init_revisions(repo, &revs, NULL);
rev_opts.submodule = path;
/* FIXME: can't handle linked worktrees in submodules yet */
revs.single_worktree = path != NULL;
setup_revisions(ARRAY_SIZE(rev_args)-1, rev_args, &revs, &rev_opts);
/* save all revisions from the above list that contain b */
if (prepare_revision_walk(&revs))
die("revision walk setup failed");
while ((commit = get_revision(&revs)) != NULL) {
struct object *o = &(commit->object);
if (in_merge_bases(b, commit))
add_object_array(o, NULL, &merges);
}
reset_revision_walk();
/* Now we've got all merges that contain a and b. Prune all
* merges that contain another found merge and save them in
* result.
*/
for (i = 0; i < merges.nr; i++) {
struct commit *m1 = (struct commit *) merges.objects[i].item;
contains_another = 0;
for (j = 0; j < merges.nr; j++) {
struct commit *m2 = (struct commit *) merges.objects[j].item;
if (i != j && in_merge_bases(m2, m1)) {
contains_another = 1;
break;
}
}
if (!contains_another)
add_object_array(merges.objects[i].item, NULL, result);
}
object_array_clear(&merges);
return result->nr;
}
static int merge_submodule(struct merge_options *opt,
const char *path,
const struct object_id *o,
const struct object_id *a,
const struct object_id *b,
struct object_id *result)
{
struct commit *commit_o, *commit_a, *commit_b;
int parent_count;
struct object_array merges;
struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
int i;
int search = !opt->priv->call_depth;
/* store fallback answer in result in case we fail */
oidcpy(result, opt->priv->call_depth ? o : a);
/* we can not handle deletion conflicts */
if (is_null_oid(o))
return 0;
if (is_null_oid(a))
return 0;
if (is_null_oid(b))
return 0;
if (add_submodule_odb(path)) {
path_msg(opt, path, 0,
_("Failed to merge submodule %s (not checked out)"),
path);
return 0;
}
if (!(commit_o = lookup_commit_reference(opt->repo, o)) ||
!(commit_a = lookup_commit_reference(opt->repo, a)) ||
!(commit_b = lookup_commit_reference(opt->repo, b))) {
path_msg(opt, path, 0,
_("Failed to merge submodule %s (commits not present)"),
path);
return 0;
}
/* check whether both changes are forward */
if (!in_merge_bases(commit_o, commit_a) ||
!in_merge_bases(commit_o, commit_b)) {
path_msg(opt, path, 0,
_("Failed to merge submodule %s "
"(commits don't follow merge-base)"),
path);
return 0;
}
/* Case #1: a is contained in b or vice versa */
if (in_merge_bases(commit_a, commit_b)) {
oidcpy(result, b);
path_msg(opt, path, 1,
_("Note: Fast-forwarding submodule %s to %s"),
path, oid_to_hex(b));
return 1;
}
if (in_merge_bases(commit_b, commit_a)) {
oidcpy(result, a);
path_msg(opt, path, 1,
_("Note: Fast-forwarding submodule %s to %s"),
path, oid_to_hex(a));
return 1;
}
/*
* Case #2: There are one or more merges that contain a and b in
* the submodule. If there is only one, then present it as a
* suggestion to the user, but leave it marked unmerged so the
* user needs to confirm the resolution.
*/
/* Skip the search if makes no sense to the calling context. */
if (!search)
return 0;
/* find commit which merges them */
parent_count = find_first_merges(opt->repo, path, commit_a, commit_b,
&merges);
switch (parent_count) {
case 0:
path_msg(opt, path, 0, _("Failed to merge submodule %s"), path);
break;
case 1:
format_commit(&sb, 4,
(struct commit *)merges.objects[0].item);
path_msg(opt, path, 0,
_("Failed to merge submodule %s, but a possible merge "
"resolution exists:\n%s\n"),
path, sb.buf);
path_msg(opt, path, 1,
_("If this is correct simply add it to the index "
"for example\n"
"by using:\n\n"
" git update-index --cacheinfo 160000 %s \"%s\"\n\n"
"which will accept this suggestion.\n"),
oid_to_hex(&merges.objects[0].item->oid), path);
strbuf_release(&sb);
break;
default:
for (i = 0; i < merges.nr; i++)
format_commit(&sb, 4,
(struct commit *)merges.objects[i].item);
path_msg(opt, path, 0,
_("Failed to merge submodule %s, but multiple "
"possible merges exist:\n%s"), path, sb.buf);
strbuf_release(&sb);
}
object_array_clear(&merges);
return 0;
}
merge-ort: have ll_merge() use a special attr_index for renormalization ll_merge() needs an index when renormalization is requested. Create one specifically for just this purpose with just the one needed entry. This fixes t6418.4 and t6418.5 under GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM=ort. NOTE 1: Even if the user has a working copy or a real index (which is not a given as merge-ort can be used in bare repositories), we explicitly ignore any .gitattributes file from either of these locations. merge-ort can be used to merge two branches that are unrelated to HEAD, so .gitattributes from the working copy and current index should not be considered relevant. NOTE 2: Since we are in the middle of merging, there is a risk that .gitattributes itself is conflicted...leaving us with an ill-defined situation about how to perform the rest of the merge. It could be that the .gitattributes file does not even exist on one of the sides of the merge, or that it has been modified on both sides. If it's been modified on both sides, it's possible that it could itself be merged cleanly, though it's also possible that it only merges cleanly if you use the right version of the .gitattributes file to drive the merge. It gets kind of complicated. The only test we ever had that attempted to test behavior in this area was seemingly unaware of the undefined behavior, but knew the test wouldn't work for lack of attribute handling support, marked it as test_expect_failure from the beginning, but managed to fail for several reasons unrelated to attribute handling. See commit 6f6e7cfb52 ("t6038: remove problematic test", 2020-08-03) for details. So there are probably various ways to improve what initialize_attr_index() picks in the case of a conflicted .gitattributes but for now I just implemented something simple -- look for whatever .gitattributes file we can find in any of the higher order stages and use it. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-20 03:03:46 +03:00
static void initialize_attr_index(struct merge_options *opt)
{
/*
* The renormalize_buffer() functions require attributes, and
* annoyingly those can only be read from the working tree or from
* an index_state. merge-ort doesn't have an index_state, so we
* generate a fake one containing only attribute information.
*/
struct merged_info *mi;
struct index_state *attr_index = &opt->priv->attr_index;
struct cache_entry *ce;
attr_index->initialized = 1;
if (!opt->renormalize)
return;
mi = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, GITATTRIBUTES_FILE);
if (!mi)
return;
if (mi->clean) {
int len = strlen(GITATTRIBUTES_FILE);
ce = make_empty_cache_entry(attr_index, len);
ce->ce_mode = create_ce_mode(mi->result.mode);
ce->ce_flags = create_ce_flags(0);
ce->ce_namelen = len;
oidcpy(&ce->oid, &mi->result.oid);
memcpy(ce->name, GITATTRIBUTES_FILE, len);
add_index_entry(attr_index, ce,
ADD_CACHE_OK_TO_ADD | ADD_CACHE_OK_TO_REPLACE);
get_stream_filter(attr_index, GITATTRIBUTES_FILE, &ce->oid);
} else {
int stage, len;
struct conflict_info *ci;
ASSIGN_AND_VERIFY_CI(ci, mi);
for (stage = 0; stage < 3; stage++) {
unsigned stage_mask = (1 << stage);
if (!(ci->filemask & stage_mask))
continue;
len = strlen(GITATTRIBUTES_FILE);
ce = make_empty_cache_entry(attr_index, len);
ce->ce_mode = create_ce_mode(ci->stages[stage].mode);
ce->ce_flags = create_ce_flags(stage);
ce->ce_namelen = len;
oidcpy(&ce->oid, &ci->stages[stage].oid);
memcpy(ce->name, GITATTRIBUTES_FILE, len);
add_index_entry(attr_index, ce,
ADD_CACHE_OK_TO_ADD | ADD_CACHE_OK_TO_REPLACE);
get_stream_filter(attr_index, GITATTRIBUTES_FILE,
&ce->oid);
}
}
}
static int merge_3way(struct merge_options *opt,
const char *path,
const struct object_id *o,
const struct object_id *a,
const struct object_id *b,
const char *pathnames[3],
const int extra_marker_size,
mmbuffer_t *result_buf)
{
mmfile_t orig, src1, src2;
struct ll_merge_options ll_opts = {0};
char *base, *name1, *name2;
int merge_status;
merge-ort: have ll_merge() use a special attr_index for renormalization ll_merge() needs an index when renormalization is requested. Create one specifically for just this purpose with just the one needed entry. This fixes t6418.4 and t6418.5 under GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM=ort. NOTE 1: Even if the user has a working copy or a real index (which is not a given as merge-ort can be used in bare repositories), we explicitly ignore any .gitattributes file from either of these locations. merge-ort can be used to merge two branches that are unrelated to HEAD, so .gitattributes from the working copy and current index should not be considered relevant. NOTE 2: Since we are in the middle of merging, there is a risk that .gitattributes itself is conflicted...leaving us with an ill-defined situation about how to perform the rest of the merge. It could be that the .gitattributes file does not even exist on one of the sides of the merge, or that it has been modified on both sides. If it's been modified on both sides, it's possible that it could itself be merged cleanly, though it's also possible that it only merges cleanly if you use the right version of the .gitattributes file to drive the merge. It gets kind of complicated. The only test we ever had that attempted to test behavior in this area was seemingly unaware of the undefined behavior, but knew the test wouldn't work for lack of attribute handling support, marked it as test_expect_failure from the beginning, but managed to fail for several reasons unrelated to attribute handling. See commit 6f6e7cfb52 ("t6038: remove problematic test", 2020-08-03) for details. So there are probably various ways to improve what initialize_attr_index() picks in the case of a conflicted .gitattributes but for now I just implemented something simple -- look for whatever .gitattributes file we can find in any of the higher order stages and use it. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-20 03:03:46 +03:00
if (!opt->priv->attr_index.initialized)
initialize_attr_index(opt);
ll_opts.renormalize = opt->renormalize;
ll_opts.extra_marker_size = extra_marker_size;
ll_opts.xdl_opts = opt->xdl_opts;
if (opt->priv->call_depth) {
ll_opts.virtual_ancestor = 1;
ll_opts.variant = 0;
} else {
switch (opt->recursive_variant) {
case MERGE_VARIANT_OURS:
ll_opts.variant = XDL_MERGE_FAVOR_OURS;
break;
case MERGE_VARIANT_THEIRS:
ll_opts.variant = XDL_MERGE_FAVOR_THEIRS;
break;
default:
ll_opts.variant = 0;
break;
}
}
assert(pathnames[0] && pathnames[1] && pathnames[2] && opt->ancestor);
if (pathnames[0] == pathnames[1] && pathnames[1] == pathnames[2]) {
base = mkpathdup("%s", opt->ancestor);
name1 = mkpathdup("%s", opt->branch1);
name2 = mkpathdup("%s", opt->branch2);
} else {
base = mkpathdup("%s:%s", opt->ancestor, pathnames[0]);
name1 = mkpathdup("%s:%s", opt->branch1, pathnames[1]);
name2 = mkpathdup("%s:%s", opt->branch2, pathnames[2]);
}
read_mmblob(&orig, o);
read_mmblob(&src1, a);
read_mmblob(&src2, b);
merge_status = ll_merge(result_buf, path, &orig, base,
&src1, name1, &src2, name2,
merge-ort: have ll_merge() use a special attr_index for renormalization ll_merge() needs an index when renormalization is requested. Create one specifically for just this purpose with just the one needed entry. This fixes t6418.4 and t6418.5 under GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM=ort. NOTE 1: Even if the user has a working copy or a real index (which is not a given as merge-ort can be used in bare repositories), we explicitly ignore any .gitattributes file from either of these locations. merge-ort can be used to merge two branches that are unrelated to HEAD, so .gitattributes from the working copy and current index should not be considered relevant. NOTE 2: Since we are in the middle of merging, there is a risk that .gitattributes itself is conflicted...leaving us with an ill-defined situation about how to perform the rest of the merge. It could be that the .gitattributes file does not even exist on one of the sides of the merge, or that it has been modified on both sides. If it's been modified on both sides, it's possible that it could itself be merged cleanly, though it's also possible that it only merges cleanly if you use the right version of the .gitattributes file to drive the merge. It gets kind of complicated. The only test we ever had that attempted to test behavior in this area was seemingly unaware of the undefined behavior, but knew the test wouldn't work for lack of attribute handling support, marked it as test_expect_failure from the beginning, but managed to fail for several reasons unrelated to attribute handling. See commit 6f6e7cfb52 ("t6038: remove problematic test", 2020-08-03) for details. So there are probably various ways to improve what initialize_attr_index() picks in the case of a conflicted .gitattributes but for now I just implemented something simple -- look for whatever .gitattributes file we can find in any of the higher order stages and use it. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-03-20 03:03:46 +03:00
&opt->priv->attr_index, &ll_opts);
free(base);
free(name1);
free(name2);
free(orig.ptr);
free(src1.ptr);
free(src2.ptr);
return merge_status;
}
static int handle_content_merge(struct merge_options *opt,
const char *path,
const struct version_info *o,
const struct version_info *a,
const struct version_info *b,
const char *pathnames[3],
const int extra_marker_size,
struct version_info *result)
{
/*
* path is the target location where we want to put the file, and
* is used to determine any normalization rules in ll_merge.
*
* The normal case is that path and all entries in pathnames are
* identical, though renames can affect which path we got one of
* the three blobs to merge on various sides of history.
*
* extra_marker_size is the amount to extend conflict markers in
* ll_merge; this is neeed if we have content merges of content
* merges, which happens for example with rename/rename(2to1) and
* rename/add conflicts.
*/
unsigned clean = 1;
/*
* handle_content_merge() needs both files to be of the same type, i.e.
* both files OR both submodules OR both symlinks. Conflicting types
* needs to be handled elsewhere.
*/
assert((S_IFMT & a->mode) == (S_IFMT & b->mode));
/* Merge modes */
if (a->mode == b->mode || a->mode == o->mode)
result->mode = b->mode;
else {
/* must be the 100644/100755 case */
assert(S_ISREG(a->mode));
result->mode = a->mode;
clean = (b->mode == o->mode);
/*
* FIXME: If opt->priv->call_depth && !clean, then we really
* should not make result->mode match either a->mode or
* b->mode; that causes t6036 "check conflicting mode for
* regular file" to fail. It would be best to use some other
* mode, but we'll confuse all kinds of stuff if we use one
* where S_ISREG(result->mode) isn't true, and if we use
* something like 0100666, then tree-walk.c's calls to
* canon_mode() will just normalize that to 100644 for us and
* thus not solve anything.
*
* Figure out if there's some kind of way we can work around
* this...
*/
}
/*
* Trivial oid merge.
*
* Note: While one might assume that the next four lines would
* be unnecessary due to the fact that match_mask is often
* setup and already handled, renames don't always take care
* of that.
*/
if (oideq(&a->oid, &b->oid) || oideq(&a->oid, &o->oid))
oidcpy(&result->oid, &b->oid);
else if (oideq(&b->oid, &o->oid))
oidcpy(&result->oid, &a->oid);
/* Remaining rules depend on file vs. submodule vs. symlink. */
else if (S_ISREG(a->mode)) {
mmbuffer_t result_buf;
int ret = 0, merge_status;
int two_way;
/*
* If 'o' is different type, treat it as null so we do a
* two-way merge.
*/
two_way = ((S_IFMT & o->mode) != (S_IFMT & a->mode));
merge_status = merge_3way(opt, path,
two_way ? null_oid() : &o->oid,
&a->oid, &b->oid,
pathnames, extra_marker_size,
&result_buf);
if ((merge_status < 0) || !result_buf.ptr)
ret = err(opt, _("Failed to execute internal merge"));
if (!ret &&
write_object_file(result_buf.ptr, result_buf.size,
blob_type, &result->oid))
ret = err(opt, _("Unable to add %s to database"),
path);
free(result_buf.ptr);
if (ret)
return -1;
clean &= (merge_status == 0);
path_msg(opt, path, 1, _("Auto-merging %s"), path);
} else if (S_ISGITLINK(a->mode)) {
int two_way = ((S_IFMT & o->mode) != (S_IFMT & a->mode));
clean = merge_submodule(opt, pathnames[0],
two_way ? null_oid() : &o->oid,
&a->oid, &b->oid, &result->oid);
if (opt->priv->call_depth && two_way && !clean) {
result->mode = o->mode;
oidcpy(&result->oid, &o->oid);
}
} else if (S_ISLNK(a->mode)) {
if (opt->priv->call_depth) {
clean = 0;
result->mode = o->mode;
oidcpy(&result->oid, &o->oid);
} else {
switch (opt->recursive_variant) {
case MERGE_VARIANT_NORMAL:
clean = 0;
oidcpy(&result->oid, &a->oid);
break;
case MERGE_VARIANT_OURS:
oidcpy(&result->oid, &a->oid);
break;
case MERGE_VARIANT_THEIRS:
oidcpy(&result->oid, &b->oid);
break;
}
}
} else
BUG("unsupported object type in the tree: %06o for %s",
a->mode, path);
return clean;
}
/*** Function Grouping: functions related to detect_and_process_renames(), ***
*** which are split into directory and regular rename detection sections. ***/
/*** Function Grouping: functions related to directory rename detection ***/
struct collision_info {
struct string_list source_files;
unsigned reported_already:1;
};
/*
* Return a new string that replaces the beginning portion (which matches
* rename_info->key), with rename_info->util.new_dir. In perl-speak:
* new_path_name = (old_path =~ s/rename_info->key/rename_info->value/);
* NOTE:
* Caller must ensure that old_path starts with rename_info->key + '/'.
*/
static char *apply_dir_rename(struct strmap_entry *rename_info,
const char *old_path)
{
struct strbuf new_path = STRBUF_INIT;
const char *old_dir = rename_info->key;
const char *new_dir = rename_info->value;
int oldlen, newlen, new_dir_len;
oldlen = strlen(old_dir);
if (*new_dir == '\0')
/*
* If someone renamed/merged a subdirectory into the root
* directory (e.g. 'some/subdir' -> ''), then we want to
* avoid returning
* '' + '/filename'
* as the rename; we need to make old_path + oldlen advance
* past the '/' character.
*/
oldlen++;
new_dir_len = strlen(new_dir);
newlen = new_dir_len + (strlen(old_path) - oldlen) + 1;
strbuf_grow(&new_path, newlen);
strbuf_add(&new_path, new_dir, new_dir_len);
strbuf_addstr(&new_path, &old_path[oldlen]);
return strbuf_detach(&new_path, NULL);
}
static int path_in_way(struct strmap *paths, const char *path, unsigned side_mask)
{
struct merged_info *mi = strmap_get(paths, path);
struct conflict_info *ci;
if (!mi)
return 0;
INITIALIZE_CI(ci, mi);
return mi->clean || (side_mask & (ci->filemask | ci->dirmask));
}
/*
* See if there is a directory rename for path, and if there are any file
* level conflicts on the given side for the renamed location. If there is
* a rename and there are no conflicts, return the new name. Otherwise,
* return NULL.
*/
static char *handle_path_level_conflicts(struct merge_options *opt,
const char *path,
unsigned side_index,
struct strmap_entry *rename_info,
struct strmap *collisions)
{
char *new_path = NULL;
struct collision_info *c_info;
int clean = 1;
struct strbuf collision_paths = STRBUF_INIT;
/*
* entry has the mapping of old directory name to new directory name
* that we want to apply to path.
*/
new_path = apply_dir_rename(rename_info, path);
if (!new_path)
BUG("Failed to apply directory rename!");
/*
* The caller needs to have ensured that it has pre-populated
* collisions with all paths that map to new_path. Do a quick check
* to ensure that's the case.
*/
c_info = strmap_get(collisions, new_path);
if (c_info == NULL)
BUG("c_info is NULL");
/*
* Check for one-sided add/add/.../add conflicts, i.e.
* where implicit renames from the other side doing
* directory rename(s) can affect this side of history
* to put multiple paths into the same location. Warn
* and bail on directory renames for such paths.
*/
if (c_info->reported_already) {
clean = 0;
} else if (path_in_way(&opt->priv->paths, new_path, 1 << side_index)) {
c_info->reported_already = 1;
strbuf_add_separated_string_list(&collision_paths, ", ",
&c_info->source_files);
path_msg(opt, new_path, 0,
_("CONFLICT (implicit dir rename): Existing file/dir "
"at %s in the way of implicit directory rename(s) "
"putting the following path(s) there: %s."),
new_path, collision_paths.buf);
clean = 0;
} else if (c_info->source_files.nr > 1) {
c_info->reported_already = 1;
strbuf_add_separated_string_list(&collision_paths, ", ",
&c_info->source_files);
path_msg(opt, new_path, 0,
_("CONFLICT (implicit dir rename): Cannot map more "
"than one path to %s; implicit directory renames "
"tried to put these paths there: %s"),
new_path, collision_paths.buf);
clean = 0;
}
/* Free memory we no longer need */
strbuf_release(&collision_paths);
if (!clean && new_path) {
free(new_path);
return NULL;
}
return new_path;
}
static void get_provisional_directory_renames(struct merge_options *opt,
unsigned side,
int *clean)
{
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *entry;
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
/*
* Collapse
* dir_rename_count: old_directory -> {new_directory -> count}
* down to
* dir_renames: old_directory -> best_new_directory
* where best_new_directory is the one with the unique highest count.
*/
strmap_for_each_entry(&renames->dir_rename_count[side], &iter, entry) {
const char *source_dir = entry->key;
struct strintmap *counts = entry->value;
struct hashmap_iter count_iter;
struct strmap_entry *count_entry;
int max = 0;
int bad_max = 0;
const char *best = NULL;
strintmap_for_each_entry(counts, &count_iter, count_entry) {
const char *target_dir = count_entry->key;
intptr_t count = (intptr_t)count_entry->value;
if (count == max)
bad_max = max;
else if (count > max) {
max = count;
best = target_dir;
}
}
if (max == 0)
continue;
if (bad_max == max) {
path_msg(opt, source_dir, 0,
_("CONFLICT (directory rename split): "
"Unclear where to rename %s to; it was "
"renamed to multiple other directories, with "
"no destination getting a majority of the "
"files."),
source_dir);
*clean = 0;
} else {
strmap_put(&renames->dir_renames[side],
source_dir, (void*)best);
}
}
}
static void handle_directory_level_conflicts(struct merge_options *opt)
{
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *entry;
struct string_list duplicated = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
struct strmap *side1_dir_renames = &renames->dir_renames[MERGE_SIDE1];
struct strmap *side2_dir_renames = &renames->dir_renames[MERGE_SIDE2];
int i;
strmap_for_each_entry(side1_dir_renames, &iter, entry) {
if (strmap_contains(side2_dir_renames, entry->key))
string_list_append(&duplicated, entry->key);
}
for (i = 0; i < duplicated.nr; i++) {
strmap_remove(side1_dir_renames, duplicated.items[i].string, 0);
strmap_remove(side2_dir_renames, duplicated.items[i].string, 0);
}
string_list_clear(&duplicated, 0);
}
static struct strmap_entry *check_dir_renamed(const char *path,
struct strmap *dir_renames)
{
char *temp = xstrdup(path);
char *end;
struct strmap_entry *e = NULL;
while ((end = strrchr(temp, '/'))) {
*end = '\0';
e = strmap_get_entry(dir_renames, temp);
if (e)
break;
}
free(temp);
return e;
}
static void compute_collisions(struct strmap *collisions,
struct strmap *dir_renames,
struct diff_queue_struct *pairs)
{
int i;
strmap_init_with_options(collisions, NULL, 0);
if (strmap_empty(dir_renames))
return;
/*
* Multiple files can be mapped to the same path due to directory
* renames done by the other side of history. Since that other
* side of history could have merged multiple directories into one,
* if our side of history added the same file basename to each of
* those directories, then all N of them would get implicitly
* renamed by the directory rename detection into the same path,
* and we'd get an add/add/.../add conflict, and all those adds
* from *this* side of history. This is not representable in the
* index, and users aren't going to easily be able to make sense of
* it. So we need to provide a good warning about what's
* happening, and fall back to no-directory-rename detection
* behavior for those paths.
*
* See testcases 9e and all of section 5 from t6043 for examples.
*/
for (i = 0; i < pairs->nr; ++i) {
struct strmap_entry *rename_info;
struct collision_info *collision_info;
char *new_path;
struct diff_filepair *pair = pairs->queue[i];
if (pair->status != 'A' && pair->status != 'R')
continue;
rename_info = check_dir_renamed(pair->two->path, dir_renames);
if (!rename_info)
continue;
new_path = apply_dir_rename(rename_info, pair->two->path);
assert(new_path);
collision_info = strmap_get(collisions, new_path);
if (collision_info) {
free(new_path);
} else {
CALLOC_ARRAY(collision_info, 1);
string_list_init_nodup(&collision_info->source_files);
strmap_put(collisions, new_path, collision_info);
}
string_list_insert(&collision_info->source_files,
pair->two->path);
}
}
static char *check_for_directory_rename(struct merge_options *opt,
const char *path,
unsigned side_index,
struct strmap *dir_renames,
struct strmap *dir_rename_exclusions,
struct strmap *collisions,
int *clean_merge)
{
char *new_path = NULL;
struct strmap_entry *rename_info;
struct strmap_entry *otherinfo = NULL;
const char *new_dir;
if (strmap_empty(dir_renames))
return new_path;
rename_info = check_dir_renamed(path, dir_renames);
if (!rename_info)
return new_path;
/* old_dir = rename_info->key; */
new_dir = rename_info->value;
/*
* This next part is a little weird. We do not want to do an
* implicit rename into a directory we renamed on our side, because
* that will result in a spurious rename/rename(1to2) conflict. An
* example:
* Base commit: dumbdir/afile, otherdir/bfile
* Side 1: smrtdir/afile, otherdir/bfile
* Side 2: dumbdir/afile, dumbdir/bfile
* Here, while working on Side 1, we could notice that otherdir was
* renamed/merged to dumbdir, and change the diff_filepair for
* otherdir/bfile into a rename into dumbdir/bfile. However, Side
* 2 will notice the rename from dumbdir to smrtdir, and do the
* transitive rename to move it from dumbdir/bfile to
* smrtdir/bfile. That gives us bfile in dumbdir vs being in
* smrtdir, a rename/rename(1to2) conflict. We really just want
* the file to end up in smrtdir. And the way to achieve that is
* to not let Side1 do the rename to dumbdir, since we know that is
* the source of one of our directory renames.
*
* That's why otherinfo and dir_rename_exclusions is here.
*
* As it turns out, this also prevents N-way transient rename
* confusion; See testcases 9c and 9d of t6043.
*/
otherinfo = strmap_get_entry(dir_rename_exclusions, new_dir);
if (otherinfo) {
path_msg(opt, rename_info->key, 1,
_("WARNING: Avoiding applying %s -> %s rename "
"to %s, because %s itself was renamed."),
rename_info->key, new_dir, path, new_dir);
return NULL;
}
new_path = handle_path_level_conflicts(opt, path, side_index,
rename_info, collisions);
*clean_merge &= (new_path != NULL);
return new_path;
}
static void apply_directory_rename_modifications(struct merge_options *opt,
struct diff_filepair *pair,
char *new_path)
{
/*
* The basic idea is to get the conflict_info from opt->priv->paths
* at old path, and insert it into new_path; basically just this:
* ci = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, old_path);
* strmap_remove(&opt->priv->paths, old_path, 0);
* strmap_put(&opt->priv->paths, new_path, ci);
* However, there are some factors complicating this:
* - opt->priv->paths may already have an entry at new_path
* - Each ci tracks its containing directory, so we need to
* update that
* - If another ci has the same containing directory, then
* the two char*'s MUST point to the same location. See the
* comment in struct merged_info. strcmp equality is not
* enough; we need pointer equality.
* - opt->priv->paths must hold the parent directories of any
* entries that are added. So, if this directory rename
* causes entirely new directories, we must recursively add
* parent directories.
* - For each parent directory added to opt->priv->paths, we
* also need to get its parent directory stored in its
* conflict_info->merged.directory_name with all the same
* requirements about pointer equality.
*/
struct string_list dirs_to_insert = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
struct conflict_info *ci, *new_ci;
struct strmap_entry *entry;
const char *branch_with_new_path, *branch_with_dir_rename;
const char *old_path = pair->two->path;
const char *parent_name;
const char *cur_path;
int i, len;
entry = strmap_get_entry(&opt->priv->paths, old_path);
old_path = entry->key;
ci = entry->value;
VERIFY_CI(ci);
/* Find parent directories missing from opt->priv->paths */
cur_path = new_path;
while (1) {
/* Find the parent directory of cur_path */
char *last_slash = strrchr(cur_path, '/');
if (last_slash) {
parent_name = xstrndup(cur_path, last_slash - cur_path);
} else {
parent_name = opt->priv->toplevel_dir;
break;
}
/* Look it up in opt->priv->paths */
entry = strmap_get_entry(&opt->priv->paths, parent_name);
if (entry) {
free((char*)parent_name);
parent_name = entry->key; /* reuse known pointer */
break;
}
/* Record this is one of the directories we need to insert */
string_list_append(&dirs_to_insert, parent_name);
cur_path = parent_name;
}
/* Traverse dirs_to_insert and insert them into opt->priv->paths */
for (i = dirs_to_insert.nr-1; i >= 0; --i) {
struct conflict_info *dir_ci;
char *cur_dir = dirs_to_insert.items[i].string;
CALLOC_ARRAY(dir_ci, 1);
dir_ci->merged.directory_name = parent_name;
len = strlen(parent_name);
/* len+1 because of trailing '/' character */
dir_ci->merged.basename_offset = (len > 0 ? len+1 : len);
dir_ci->dirmask = ci->filemask;
strmap_put(&opt->priv->paths, cur_dir, dir_ci);
parent_name = cur_dir;
}
/*
* We are removing old_path from opt->priv->paths. old_path also will
* eventually need to be freed, but it may still be used by e.g.
* ci->pathnames. So, store it in another string-list for now.
*/
string_list_append(&opt->priv->paths_to_free, old_path);
assert(ci->filemask == 2 || ci->filemask == 4);
assert(ci->dirmask == 0);
strmap_remove(&opt->priv->paths, old_path, 0);
branch_with_new_path = (ci->filemask == 2) ? opt->branch1 : opt->branch2;
branch_with_dir_rename = (ci->filemask == 2) ? opt->branch2 : opt->branch1;
/* Now, finally update ci and stick it into opt->priv->paths */
ci->merged.directory_name = parent_name;
len = strlen(parent_name);
ci->merged.basename_offset = (len > 0 ? len+1 : len);
new_ci = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, new_path);
if (!new_ci) {
/* Place ci back into opt->priv->paths, but at new_path */
strmap_put(&opt->priv->paths, new_path, ci);
} else {
int index;
/* A few sanity checks */
VERIFY_CI(new_ci);
assert(ci->filemask == 2 || ci->filemask == 4);
assert((new_ci->filemask & ci->filemask) == 0);
assert(!new_ci->merged.clean);
/* Copy stuff from ci into new_ci */
new_ci->filemask |= ci->filemask;
if (new_ci->dirmask)
new_ci->df_conflict = 1;
index = (ci->filemask >> 1);
new_ci->pathnames[index] = ci->pathnames[index];
new_ci->stages[index].mode = ci->stages[index].mode;
oidcpy(&new_ci->stages[index].oid, &ci->stages[index].oid);
free(ci);
ci = new_ci;
}
if (opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_TRUE) {
/* Notify user of updated path */
if (pair->status == 'A')
path_msg(opt, new_path, 1,
_("Path updated: %s added in %s inside a "
"directory that was renamed in %s; moving "
"it to %s."),
old_path, branch_with_new_path,
branch_with_dir_rename, new_path);
else
path_msg(opt, new_path, 1,
_("Path updated: %s renamed to %s in %s, "
"inside a directory that was renamed in %s; "
"moving it to %s."),
pair->one->path, old_path, branch_with_new_path,
branch_with_dir_rename, new_path);
} else {
/*
* opt->detect_directory_renames has the value
* MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_CONFLICT, so mark these as conflicts.
*/
ci->path_conflict = 1;
if (pair->status == 'A')
path_msg(opt, new_path, 0,
_("CONFLICT (file location): %s added in %s "
"inside a directory that was renamed in %s, "
"suggesting it should perhaps be moved to "
"%s."),
old_path, branch_with_new_path,
branch_with_dir_rename, new_path);
else
path_msg(opt, new_path, 0,
_("CONFLICT (file location): %s renamed to %s "
"in %s, inside a directory that was renamed "
"in %s, suggesting it should perhaps be "
"moved to %s."),
pair->one->path, old_path, branch_with_new_path,
branch_with_dir_rename, new_path);
}
/*
* Finally, record the new location.
*/
pair->two->path = new_path;
}
/*** Function Grouping: functions related to regular rename detection ***/
static int process_renames(struct merge_options *opt,
struct diff_queue_struct *renames)
{
int clean_merge = 1, i;
for (i = 0; i < renames->nr; ++i) {
const char *oldpath = NULL, *newpath;
struct diff_filepair *pair = renames->queue[i];
struct conflict_info *oldinfo = NULL, *newinfo = NULL;
struct strmap_entry *old_ent, *new_ent;
unsigned int old_sidemask;
int target_index, other_source_index;
int source_deleted, collision, type_changed;
merge-ort: add implementation of rename/delete conflicts Implement rename/delete conflicts, i.e. one side renames a file and the other deletes the file. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * the code relevant to RENAME_DELETE in process_renames() * the RENAME_DELETE case of process_entry() * handle_rename_delete() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_change_delete() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of five separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. To be fair, there is a _slight_ tweak to process_entry() here, because rename/delete cases will also trigger the modify/delete codepath. However, we only want a modify/delete message to be printed for a rename/delete conflict if there is a content change in the renamed file in addition to the rename. So process_renames() and process_entry() aren't quite fully orthogonal, but they are pretty close. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:03 +03:00
const char *rename_branch = NULL, *delete_branch = NULL;
old_ent = strmap_get_entry(&opt->priv->paths, pair->one->path);
new_ent = strmap_get_entry(&opt->priv->paths, pair->two->path);
if (old_ent) {
oldpath = old_ent->key;
oldinfo = old_ent->value;
}
newpath = pair->two->path;
if (new_ent) {
newpath = new_ent->key;
newinfo = new_ent->value;
}
/*
* If pair->one->path isn't in opt->priv->paths, that means
* that either directory rename detection removed that
* path, or a parent directory of oldpath was resolved and
* we don't even need the rename; in either case, we can
* skip it. If oldinfo->merged.clean, then the other side
* of history had no changes to oldpath and we don't need
* the rename and can skip it.
*/
if (!oldinfo || oldinfo->merged.clean)
continue;
/*
* diff_filepairs have copies of pathnames, thus we have to
* use standard 'strcmp()' (negated) instead of '=='.
*/
if (i + 1 < renames->nr &&
!strcmp(oldpath, renames->queue[i+1]->one->path)) {
/* Handle rename/rename(1to2) or rename/rename(1to1) */
const char *pathnames[3];
struct version_info merged;
struct conflict_info *base, *side1, *side2;
merge-ort: add implementation of both sides renaming differently Implement rename/rename(1to2) handling, i.e. both sides of history renaming a file and rename it differently. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * all the 1to2 code in process_renames() * the RENAME_ONE_FILE_TO_TWO case of process_entry() * handle_rename_rename_1to2() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_file_collision() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of five separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. To be fair, there is a _slight_ tweak to process_entry() here to make sure that the two different paths aren't marked as clean but are left in a conflicted state. So process_renames() and process_entry() aren't quite entirely orthogonal, but they are pretty close. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:02 +03:00
unsigned was_binary_blob = 0;
pathnames[0] = oldpath;
pathnames[1] = newpath;
pathnames[2] = renames->queue[i+1]->two->path;
base = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, pathnames[0]);
side1 = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, pathnames[1]);
side2 = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, pathnames[2]);
VERIFY_CI(base);
VERIFY_CI(side1);
VERIFY_CI(side2);
if (!strcmp(pathnames[1], pathnames[2])) {
struct rename_info *ri = &opt->priv->renames;
int j;
/* Both sides renamed the same way */
assert(side1 == side2);
memcpy(&side1->stages[0], &base->stages[0],
sizeof(merged));
side1->filemask |= (1 << MERGE_BASE);
/* Mark base as resolved by removal */
base->merged.is_null = 1;
base->merged.clean = 1;
/*
* Disable remembering renames optimization;
* rename/rename(1to1) is incredibly rare, and
* just disabling the optimization is easier
* than purging cached_pairs,
* cached_target_names, and dir_rename_counts.
*/
for (j = 0; j < 3; j++)
ri->merge_trees[j] = NULL;
/* We handled both renames, i.e. i+1 handled */
i++;
/* Move to next rename */
continue;
}
/* This is a rename/rename(1to2) */
merge-ort: add implementation of both sides renaming differently Implement rename/rename(1to2) handling, i.e. both sides of history renaming a file and rename it differently. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * all the 1to2 code in process_renames() * the RENAME_ONE_FILE_TO_TWO case of process_entry() * handle_rename_rename_1to2() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_file_collision() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of five separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. To be fair, there is a _slight_ tweak to process_entry() here to make sure that the two different paths aren't marked as clean but are left in a conflicted state. So process_renames() and process_entry() aren't quite entirely orthogonal, but they are pretty close. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:02 +03:00
clean_merge = handle_content_merge(opt,
pair->one->path,
&base->stages[0],
&side1->stages[1],
&side2->stages[2],
pathnames,
1 + 2 * opt->priv->call_depth,
&merged);
if (!clean_merge &&
merged.mode == side1->stages[1].mode &&
oideq(&merged.oid, &side1->stages[1].oid))
was_binary_blob = 1;
memcpy(&side1->stages[1], &merged, sizeof(merged));
if (was_binary_blob) {
/*
* Getting here means we were attempting to
* merge a binary blob.
*
* Since we can't merge binaries,
* handle_content_merge() just takes one
* side. But we don't want to copy the
* contents of one side to both paths. We
* used the contents of side1 above for
* side1->stages, let's use the contents of
* side2 for side2->stages below.
*/
oidcpy(&merged.oid, &side2->stages[2].oid);
merged.mode = side2->stages[2].mode;
}
memcpy(&side2->stages[2], &merged, sizeof(merged));
side1->path_conflict = 1;
side2->path_conflict = 1;
/*
* TODO: For renames we normally remove the path at the
* old name. It would thus seem consistent to do the
* same for rename/rename(1to2) cases, but we haven't
* done so traditionally and a number of the regression
* tests now encode an expectation that the file is
* left there at stage 1. If we ever decide to change
* this, add the following two lines here:
* base->merged.is_null = 1;
* base->merged.clean = 1;
* and remove the setting of base->path_conflict to 1.
*/
base->path_conflict = 1;
path_msg(opt, oldpath, 0,
_("CONFLICT (rename/rename): %s renamed to "
"%s in %s and to %s in %s."),
pathnames[0],
pathnames[1], opt->branch1,
pathnames[2], opt->branch2);
i++; /* We handled both renames, i.e. i+1 handled */
continue;
}
VERIFY_CI(oldinfo);
VERIFY_CI(newinfo);
target_index = pair->score; /* from collect_renames() */
assert(target_index == 1 || target_index == 2);
other_source_index = 3 - target_index;
old_sidemask = (1 << other_source_index); /* 2 or 4 */
source_deleted = (oldinfo->filemask == 1);
collision = ((newinfo->filemask & old_sidemask) != 0);
type_changed = !source_deleted &&
(S_ISREG(oldinfo->stages[other_source_index].mode) !=
S_ISREG(newinfo->stages[target_index].mode));
if (type_changed && collision) {
/*
* special handling so later blocks can handle this...
*
* if type_changed && collision are both true, then this
* was really a double rename, but one side wasn't
* detected due to lack of break detection. I.e.
* something like
* orig: has normal file 'foo'
* side1: renames 'foo' to 'bar', adds 'foo' symlink
* side2: renames 'foo' to 'bar'
* In this case, the foo->bar rename on side1 won't be
* detected because the new symlink named 'foo' is
* there and we don't do break detection. But we detect
* this here because we don't want to merge the content
* of the foo symlink with the foo->bar file, so we
* have some logic to handle this special case. The
* easiest way to do that is make 'bar' on side1 not
* be considered a colliding file but the other part
* of a normal rename. If the file is very different,
* well we're going to get content merge conflicts
* anyway so it doesn't hurt. And if the colliding
* file also has a different type, that'll be handled
* by the content merge logic in process_entry() too.
*
* See also t6430, 'rename vs. rename/symlink'
*/
collision = 0;
}
merge-ort: add implementation of rename/delete conflicts Implement rename/delete conflicts, i.e. one side renames a file and the other deletes the file. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * the code relevant to RENAME_DELETE in process_renames() * the RENAME_DELETE case of process_entry() * handle_rename_delete() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_change_delete() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of five separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. To be fair, there is a _slight_ tweak to process_entry() here, because rename/delete cases will also trigger the modify/delete codepath. However, we only want a modify/delete message to be printed for a rename/delete conflict if there is a content change in the renamed file in addition to the rename. So process_renames() and process_entry() aren't quite fully orthogonal, but they are pretty close. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:03 +03:00
if (source_deleted) {
if (target_index == 1) {
rename_branch = opt->branch1;
delete_branch = opt->branch2;
} else {
rename_branch = opt->branch2;
delete_branch = opt->branch1;
}
}
assert(source_deleted || oldinfo->filemask & old_sidemask);
/* Need to check for special types of rename conflicts... */
if (collision && !source_deleted) {
/* collision: rename/add or rename/rename(2to1) */
merge-ort: add implementation of rename collisions Implement rename/rename(2to1) and rename/add handling, i.e. a file is renamed into a location where another file is added (with that other file either being a plain add or itself coming from a rename). Note that rename collisions can also have a special case stacked on top: the file being renamed on one side of history is deleted on the other (yielding either a rename/add/delete conflict or perhaps a rename/rename(2to1)/delete[/delete]) conflict. One thing to note here is that when there is a double rename, the code in question only handles one of them at a time; a later iteration through the loop will handle the other. After they've both been handled, process_entry()'s normal add/add code can handle the collision. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * all the 2to1 code in process_renames() * the RENAME_TWO_FILES_TO_ONE case of process_entry() * handle_rename_rename_2to1() * handle_rename_add() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_file_collision() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of six separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:04 +03:00
const char *pathnames[3];
struct version_info merged;
struct conflict_info *base, *side1, *side2;
unsigned clean;
pathnames[0] = oldpath;
pathnames[other_source_index] = oldpath;
pathnames[target_index] = newpath;
base = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, pathnames[0]);
side1 = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, pathnames[1]);
side2 = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, pathnames[2]);
VERIFY_CI(base);
VERIFY_CI(side1);
VERIFY_CI(side2);
clean = handle_content_merge(opt, pair->one->path,
&base->stages[0],
&side1->stages[1],
&side2->stages[2],
pathnames,
1 + 2 * opt->priv->call_depth,
&merged);
memcpy(&newinfo->stages[target_index], &merged,
sizeof(merged));
if (!clean) {
path_msg(opt, newpath, 0,
_("CONFLICT (rename involved in "
"collision): rename of %s -> %s has "
"content conflicts AND collides "
"with another path; this may result "
"in nested conflict markers."),
oldpath, newpath);
}
} else if (collision && source_deleted) {
merge-ort: add implementation of rename collisions Implement rename/rename(2to1) and rename/add handling, i.e. a file is renamed into a location where another file is added (with that other file either being a plain add or itself coming from a rename). Note that rename collisions can also have a special case stacked on top: the file being renamed on one side of history is deleted on the other (yielding either a rename/add/delete conflict or perhaps a rename/rename(2to1)/delete[/delete]) conflict. One thing to note here is that when there is a double rename, the code in question only handles one of them at a time; a later iteration through the loop will handle the other. After they've both been handled, process_entry()'s normal add/add code can handle the collision. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * all the 2to1 code in process_renames() * the RENAME_TWO_FILES_TO_ONE case of process_entry() * handle_rename_rename_2to1() * handle_rename_add() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_file_collision() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of six separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:04 +03:00
/*
* rename/add/delete or rename/rename(2to1)/delete:
* since oldpath was deleted on the side that didn't
* do the rename, there's not much of a content merge
* we can do for the rename. oldinfo->merged.is_null
* was already set, so we just leave things as-is so
* they look like an add/add conflict.
*/
newinfo->path_conflict = 1;
path_msg(opt, newpath, 0,
_("CONFLICT (rename/delete): %s renamed "
"to %s in %s, but deleted in %s."),
oldpath, newpath, rename_branch, delete_branch);
} else {
merge-ort: add implementation of rename/delete conflicts Implement rename/delete conflicts, i.e. one side renames a file and the other deletes the file. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * the code relevant to RENAME_DELETE in process_renames() * the RENAME_DELETE case of process_entry() * handle_rename_delete() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_change_delete() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of five separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. To be fair, there is a _slight_ tweak to process_entry() here, because rename/delete cases will also trigger the modify/delete codepath. However, we only want a modify/delete message to be printed for a rename/delete conflict if there is a content change in the renamed file in addition to the rename. So process_renames() and process_entry() aren't quite fully orthogonal, but they are pretty close. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:03 +03:00
/*
* a few different cases...start by copying the
* existing stage(s) from oldinfo over the newinfo
* and update the pathname(s).
*/
memcpy(&newinfo->stages[0], &oldinfo->stages[0],
sizeof(newinfo->stages[0]));
newinfo->filemask |= (1 << MERGE_BASE);
newinfo->pathnames[0] = oldpath;
if (type_changed) {
/* rename vs. typechange */
/* Mark the original as resolved by removal */
memcpy(&oldinfo->stages[0].oid, null_oid(),
sizeof(oldinfo->stages[0].oid));
oldinfo->stages[0].mode = 0;
oldinfo->filemask &= 0x06;
} else if (source_deleted) {
/* rename/delete */
merge-ort: add implementation of rename/delete conflicts Implement rename/delete conflicts, i.e. one side renames a file and the other deletes the file. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * the code relevant to RENAME_DELETE in process_renames() * the RENAME_DELETE case of process_entry() * handle_rename_delete() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_change_delete() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of five separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. To be fair, there is a _slight_ tweak to process_entry() here, because rename/delete cases will also trigger the modify/delete codepath. However, we only want a modify/delete message to be printed for a rename/delete conflict if there is a content change in the renamed file in addition to the rename. So process_renames() and process_entry() aren't quite fully orthogonal, but they are pretty close. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:03 +03:00
newinfo->path_conflict = 1;
path_msg(opt, newpath, 0,
_("CONFLICT (rename/delete): %s renamed"
" to %s in %s, but deleted in %s."),
oldpath, newpath,
rename_branch, delete_branch);
} else {
/* normal rename */
merge-ort: add implementation of normal rename handling Implement handling of normal renames. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * the code relevant to RENAME_NORMAL in process_renames() * the RENAME_NORMAL case of process_entry() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_rename_normal() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of four separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. (To be fair, the code for handling normal renames wasn't all that complicated beforehand, but it's still much simpler now.) Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:05 +03:00
memcpy(&newinfo->stages[other_source_index],
&oldinfo->stages[other_source_index],
sizeof(newinfo->stages[0]));
newinfo->filemask |= (1 << other_source_index);
newinfo->pathnames[other_source_index] = oldpath;
}
}
if (!type_changed) {
/* Mark the original as resolved by removal */
oldinfo->merged.is_null = 1;
oldinfo->merged.clean = 1;
}
}
return clean_merge;
}
static inline int possible_side_renames(struct rename_info *renames,
unsigned side_index)
{
return renames->pairs[side_index].nr > 0 &&
!strintmap_empty(&renames->relevant_sources[side_index]);
}
static inline int possible_renames(struct rename_info *renames)
{
return possible_side_renames(renames, 1) ||
merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible When there are many renames between the old base of a series of commits and the new base, the way sequencer.c, merge-recursive.c, and diffcore-rename.c have traditionally split the work resulted in redetecting the same renames with each and every commit being transplanted. To address this, the last several commits have been creating a cache of rename detection results, determining when it was safe to use such a cache in subsequent merge operations, adding helper functions, and so on. See the previous half dozen commit messages for additional discussion of this optimization, particularly the message a few commits ago entitled "add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused". This commit finally ties all of that work together, modifying the merge algorithm to make use of these cached renames. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.665 s ± 0.129 s 5.622 s ± 0.059 s mega-renames: 11.435 s ± 0.158 s 10.127 s ± 0.073 s just-one-mega: 494.2 ms ± 6.1 ms 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms That's a fairly small improvement, but mostly because the previous optimizations were so effective for these particular testcases; this optimization only kicks in when the others don't. If we undid the basename-guided rename detection and skip-irrelevant-renames optimizations, then we'd see that this series by itself improved performance as follows: Before Basename Series After Just This Series no-renames: 13.815 s ± 0.062 s 5.697 s ± 0.080 s mega-renames: 1799.937 s ± 0.493 s 205.709 s ± 0.457 s Since this optimization kicks in to help accelerate cases where the previous optimizations do not apply, this last comparison shows that this cached-renames optimization has the potential to help signficantly in cases that don't meet the requirements for the other optimizations to be effective. The changes made in this optimization also lay some important groundwork for a future optimization around having collect_merge_info() avoid recursing into subtrees in more cases. However, for this optimization to be effective, merge_switch_to_result() should only be called when the rebase or cherry-pick operation has either completed or hit a case where the user needs to resolve a conflict or edit the result. If it is called after every commit, as sequencer.c does, then the working tree and index are needlessly updated with every commit and the cached metadata is tossed, defeating this optimization. Refactoring sequencer.c to only call merge_switch_to_result() at the end of the operation is a bigger undertaking, and the practical benefits of this optimization will not be realized until that work is performed. Since `test-tool fast-rebase` only updates at the end of the operation, it was used to obtain the timings above. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:41 +03:00
possible_side_renames(renames, 2) ||
!strmap_empty(&renames->cached_pairs[1]) ||
!strmap_empty(&renames->cached_pairs[2]);
}
merge-ort: call diffcore_rename() directly We want to pass additional information to diffcore_rename() (or some variant thereof) without plumbing that extra information through diff_tree_oid() and diffcore_std(). Further, since we will need to gather additional special information related to diffs and are walking the trees anyway in collect_merge_info(), it seems odd to have diff_tree_oid()/diffcore_std() repeat those tree walks. And there may be times where we can avoid traversing into a subtree in collect_merge_info() (based on additional information at our disposal), that the basic diff logic would be unable to take advantage of. For all these reasons, just create the add and delete pairs ourself and then call diffcore_rename() directly. This change is primarily about enabling future optimizations; the advantage of avoiding extra tree traversals is small compared to the cost of rename detection, and the advantage of avoiding the extra tree traversals is somewhat offset by the extra time spent in collect_merge_info() collecting the additional data anyway. However... For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 13.294 s ± 0.103 s 12.775 s ± 0.062 s mega-renames: 187.248 s ± 0.882 s 188.754 s ± 0.284 s just-one-mega: 5.557 s ± 0.017 s 5.599 s ± 0.019 s Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-02-14 10:51:51 +03:00
static void resolve_diffpair_statuses(struct diff_queue_struct *q)
{
/*
* A simplified version of diff_resolve_rename_copy(); would probably
* just use that function but it's static...
*/
int i;
struct diff_filepair *p;
for (i = 0; i < q->nr; ++i) {
p = q->queue[i];
p->status = 0; /* undecided */
if (!DIFF_FILE_VALID(p->one))
p->status = DIFF_STATUS_ADDED;
else if (!DIFF_FILE_VALID(p->two))
p->status = DIFF_STATUS_DELETED;
else if (DIFF_PAIR_RENAME(p))
p->status = DIFF_STATUS_RENAMED;
}
}
static void prune_cached_from_relevant(struct rename_info *renames,
unsigned side)
{
/* Reason for this function described in add_pair() */
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *entry;
/* Remove from relevant_sources all entries in cached_pairs[side] */
strmap_for_each_entry(&renames->cached_pairs[side], &iter, entry) {
strintmap_remove(&renames->relevant_sources[side],
entry->key);
}
/* Remove from relevant_sources all entries in cached_irrelevant[side] */
strset_for_each_entry(&renames->cached_irrelevant[side], &iter, entry) {
strintmap_remove(&renames->relevant_sources[side],
entry->key);
}
}
static void use_cached_pairs(struct merge_options *opt,
struct strmap *cached_pairs,
struct diff_queue_struct *pairs)
{
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *entry;
/*
* Add to side_pairs all entries from renames->cached_pairs[side_index].
* (Info in cached_irrelevant[side_index] is not relevant here.)
*/
strmap_for_each_entry(cached_pairs, &iter, entry) {
struct diff_filespec *one, *two;
const char *old_name = entry->key;
const char *new_name = entry->value;
if (!new_name)
new_name = old_name;
/* We don't care about oid/mode, only filenames and status */
one = alloc_filespec(old_name);
two = alloc_filespec(new_name);
diff_queue(pairs, one, two);
pairs->queue[pairs->nr-1]->status = entry->value ? 'R' : 'D';
}
}
static void cache_new_pair(struct rename_info *renames,
int side,
char *old_path,
char *new_path,
int free_old_value)
{
char *old_value;
new_path = xstrdup(new_path);
old_value = strmap_put(&renames->cached_pairs[side],
old_path, new_path);
strset_add(&renames->cached_target_names[side], new_path);
if (free_old_value)
free(old_value);
else
assert(!old_value);
}
static void possibly_cache_new_pair(struct rename_info *renames,
struct diff_filepair *p,
unsigned side,
char *new_path)
{
int dir_renamed_side = 0;
if (new_path) {
/*
* Directory renames happen on the other side of history from
* the side that adds new files to the old directory.
*/
dir_renamed_side = 3 - side;
} else {
int val = strintmap_get(&renames->relevant_sources[side],
p->one->path);
if (val == RELEVANT_NO_MORE) {
assert(p->status == 'D');
strset_add(&renames->cached_irrelevant[side],
p->one->path);
}
if (val <= 0)
return;
}
if (p->status == 'D') {
/*
* If we already had this delete, we'll just set it's value
* to NULL again, so no harm.
*/
strmap_put(&renames->cached_pairs[side], p->one->path, NULL);
} else if (p->status == 'R') {
if (!new_path)
new_path = p->two->path;
else
cache_new_pair(renames, dir_renamed_side,
p->two->path, new_path, 0);
cache_new_pair(renames, side, p->one->path, new_path, 1);
} else if (p->status == 'A' && new_path) {
cache_new_pair(renames, dir_renamed_side,
p->two->path, new_path, 0);
}
}
static int compare_pairs(const void *a_, const void *b_)
{
const struct diff_filepair *a = *((const struct diff_filepair **)a_);
const struct diff_filepair *b = *((const struct diff_filepair **)b_);
return strcmp(a->one->path, b->one->path);
}
/* Call diffcore_rename() to update deleted/added pairs into rename pairs */
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
static int detect_regular_renames(struct merge_options *opt,
unsigned side_index)
{
struct diff_options diff_opts;
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible When there are many renames between the old base of a series of commits and the new base, the way sequencer.c, merge-recursive.c, and diffcore-rename.c have traditionally split the work resulted in redetecting the same renames with each and every commit being transplanted. To address this, the last several commits have been creating a cache of rename detection results, determining when it was safe to use such a cache in subsequent merge operations, adding helper functions, and so on. See the previous half dozen commit messages for additional discussion of this optimization, particularly the message a few commits ago entitled "add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused". This commit finally ties all of that work together, modifying the merge algorithm to make use of these cached renames. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.665 s ± 0.129 s 5.622 s ± 0.059 s mega-renames: 11.435 s ± 0.158 s 10.127 s ± 0.073 s just-one-mega: 494.2 ms ± 6.1 ms 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms That's a fairly small improvement, but mostly because the previous optimizations were so effective for these particular testcases; this optimization only kicks in when the others don't. If we undid the basename-guided rename detection and skip-irrelevant-renames optimizations, then we'd see that this series by itself improved performance as follows: Before Basename Series After Just This Series no-renames: 13.815 s ± 0.062 s 5.697 s ± 0.080 s mega-renames: 1799.937 s ± 0.493 s 205.709 s ± 0.457 s Since this optimization kicks in to help accelerate cases where the previous optimizations do not apply, this last comparison shows that this cached-renames optimization has the potential to help signficantly in cases that don't meet the requirements for the other optimizations to be effective. The changes made in this optimization also lay some important groundwork for a future optimization around having collect_merge_info() avoid recursing into subtrees in more cases. However, for this optimization to be effective, merge_switch_to_result() should only be called when the rebase or cherry-pick operation has either completed or hit a case where the user needs to resolve a conflict or edit the result. If it is called after every commit, as sequencer.c does, then the working tree and index are needlessly updated with every commit and the cached metadata is tossed, defeating this optimization. Refactoring sequencer.c to only call merge_switch_to_result() at the end of the operation is a bigger undertaking, and the practical benefits of this optimization will not be realized until that work is performed. Since `test-tool fast-rebase` only updates at the end of the operation, it was used to obtain the timings above. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:41 +03:00
prune_cached_from_relevant(renames, side_index);
if (!possible_side_renames(renames, side_index)) {
/*
* No rename detection needed for this side, but we still need
* to make sure 'adds' are marked correctly in case the other
* side had directory renames.
*/
resolve_diffpair_statuses(&renames->pairs[side_index]);
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
return 0;
}
partial_clear_dir_rename_count(&renames->dir_rename_count[side_index]);
repo_diff_setup(opt->repo, &diff_opts);
diff_opts.flags.recursive = 1;
diff_opts.flags.rename_empty = 0;
diff_opts.detect_rename = DIFF_DETECT_RENAME;
diff_opts.rename_limit = opt->rename_limit;
if (opt->rename_limit <= 0)
rename: bump limit defaults yet again These were last bumped in commit 92c57e5c1d29 (bump rename limit defaults (again), 2011-02-19), and were bumped both because processors had gotten faster, and because people were getting ugly merges that caused problems and reporting it to the mailing list (suggesting that folks were willing to spend more time waiting). Since that time: * Linus has continued recommending kernel folks to set diff.renameLimit=0 (maps to 32767, currently) * Folks with repositories with lots of renames were happy to set merge.renameLimit above 32767, once the code supported that, to get correct cherry-picks * Processors have gotten faster * It has been discovered that the timing methodology used last time probably used too large example files. The last point is probably worth explaining a bit more: * The "average" file size used appears to have been average blob size in the linux kernel history at the time (probably v2.6.25 or something close to it). * Since bigger files are modified more frequently, such a computation weights towards larger files. * Larger files may be more likely to be modified over time, but are not more likely to be renamed -- the mean and median blob size within a tree are a bit higher than the mean and median of blob sizes in the history leading up to that version for the linux kernel. * The mean blob size in v2.6.25 was half the average blob size in history leading to that point * The median blob size in v2.6.25 was about 40% of the mean blob size in v2.6.25. * Since the mean blob size is more than double the median blob size, any file as big as the mean will not be compared to any files of median size or less (because they'd be more than 50% dissimilar). * Since it is the number of files compared that provides the O(n^2) behavior, median-sized files should matter more than mean-sized ones. The combined effect of the above is that the file size used in past calculations was likely about 5x too large. Combine that with a CPU performance improvement of ~30%, and we can increase the limits by a factor of sqrt(5/(1-.3)) = 2.67, while keeping the original stated time limits. Keeping the same approximate time limit probably makes sense for diff.renameLimit (there is no progress feedback in e.g. git log -p), but the experience above suggests merge.renameLimit could be extended significantly. In fact, it probably would make sense to have an unlimited default setting for merge.renameLimit, but that would likely need to be coupled with changes to how progress is displayed. (See https://lore.kernel.org/git/YOx+Ok%2FEYvLqRMzJ@coredump.intra.peff.net/ for details in that area.) For now, let's just bump the approximate time limit from 10s to 1m. (Note: We do not want to use actual time limits, because getting results that depend on how loaded your system is that day feels bad, and because we don't discover that we won't get all the renames until after we've put in a lot of work rather than just upfront telling the user there are too many files involved.) Using the original time limit of 2s for diff.renameLimit, and bumping merge.renameLimit from 10s to 60s, I found the following timings using the simple script at the end of this commit message (on an AWS c5.xlarge which reports as "Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8124M CPU @ 3.00GHz"): N Timing 1300 1.995s 7100 59.973s So let's round down to nice even numbers and bump the limits from 400->1000, and from 1000->7000. Here is the measure_rename_perf script (adapted from https://lore.kernel.org/git/20080211113516.GB6344@coredump.intra.peff.net/ in particular to avoid triggering the linear handling from basename-guided rename detection): #!/bin/bash n=$1; shift rm -rf repo mkdir repo && cd repo git init -q -b main mkdata() { mkdir $1 for i in `seq 1 $2`; do (sed "s/^/$i /" <../sample echo tag: $1 ) >$1/$i done } mkdata initial $n git add . git commit -q -m initial mkdata new $n git add . cd new for i in *; do git mv $i $i.renamed; done cd .. git rm -q -rf initial git commit -q -m new time git diff-tree -M -l0 --summary HEAD^ HEAD Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-15 03:45:24 +03:00
diff_opts.rename_limit = 7000;
diff_opts.rename_score = opt->rename_score;
diff_opts.show_rename_progress = opt->show_rename_progress;
diff_opts.output_format = DIFF_FORMAT_NO_OUTPUT;
diff_setup_done(&diff_opts);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
merge-ort: call diffcore_rename() directly We want to pass additional information to diffcore_rename() (or some variant thereof) without plumbing that extra information through diff_tree_oid() and diffcore_std(). Further, since we will need to gather additional special information related to diffs and are walking the trees anyway in collect_merge_info(), it seems odd to have diff_tree_oid()/diffcore_std() repeat those tree walks. And there may be times where we can avoid traversing into a subtree in collect_merge_info() (based on additional information at our disposal), that the basic diff logic would be unable to take advantage of. For all these reasons, just create the add and delete pairs ourself and then call diffcore_rename() directly. This change is primarily about enabling future optimizations; the advantage of avoiding extra tree traversals is small compared to the cost of rename detection, and the advantage of avoiding the extra tree traversals is somewhat offset by the extra time spent in collect_merge_info() collecting the additional data anyway. However... For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 13.294 s ± 0.103 s 12.775 s ± 0.062 s mega-renames: 187.248 s ± 0.882 s 188.754 s ± 0.284 s just-one-mega: 5.557 s ± 0.017 s 5.599 s ± 0.019 s Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-02-14 10:51:51 +03:00
diff_queued_diff = renames->pairs[side_index];
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("diff", "diffcore_rename", opt->repo);
diffcore_rename_extended(&diff_opts,
&renames->relevant_sources[side_index],
&renames->dirs_removed[side_index],
merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible When there are many renames between the old base of a series of commits and the new base, the way sequencer.c, merge-recursive.c, and diffcore-rename.c have traditionally split the work resulted in redetecting the same renames with each and every commit being transplanted. To address this, the last several commits have been creating a cache of rename detection results, determining when it was safe to use such a cache in subsequent merge operations, adding helper functions, and so on. See the previous half dozen commit messages for additional discussion of this optimization, particularly the message a few commits ago entitled "add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused". This commit finally ties all of that work together, modifying the merge algorithm to make use of these cached renames. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.665 s ± 0.129 s 5.622 s ± 0.059 s mega-renames: 11.435 s ± 0.158 s 10.127 s ± 0.073 s just-one-mega: 494.2 ms ± 6.1 ms 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms That's a fairly small improvement, but mostly because the previous optimizations were so effective for these particular testcases; this optimization only kicks in when the others don't. If we undid the basename-guided rename detection and skip-irrelevant-renames optimizations, then we'd see that this series by itself improved performance as follows: Before Basename Series After Just This Series no-renames: 13.815 s ± 0.062 s 5.697 s ± 0.080 s mega-renames: 1799.937 s ± 0.493 s 205.709 s ± 0.457 s Since this optimization kicks in to help accelerate cases where the previous optimizations do not apply, this last comparison shows that this cached-renames optimization has the potential to help signficantly in cases that don't meet the requirements for the other optimizations to be effective. The changes made in this optimization also lay some important groundwork for a future optimization around having collect_merge_info() avoid recursing into subtrees in more cases. However, for this optimization to be effective, merge_switch_to_result() should only be called when the rebase or cherry-pick operation has either completed or hit a case where the user needs to resolve a conflict or edit the result. If it is called after every commit, as sequencer.c does, then the working tree and index are needlessly updated with every commit and the cached metadata is tossed, defeating this optimization. Refactoring sequencer.c to only call merge_switch_to_result() at the end of the operation is a bigger undertaking, and the practical benefits of this optimization will not be realized until that work is performed. Since `test-tool fast-rebase` only updates at the end of the operation, it was used to obtain the timings above. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:41 +03:00
&renames->dir_rename_count[side_index],
&renames->cached_pairs[side_index]);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("diff", "diffcore_rename", opt->repo);
merge-ort: call diffcore_rename() directly We want to pass additional information to diffcore_rename() (or some variant thereof) without plumbing that extra information through diff_tree_oid() and diffcore_std(). Further, since we will need to gather additional special information related to diffs and are walking the trees anyway in collect_merge_info(), it seems odd to have diff_tree_oid()/diffcore_std() repeat those tree walks. And there may be times where we can avoid traversing into a subtree in collect_merge_info() (based on additional information at our disposal), that the basic diff logic would be unable to take advantage of. For all these reasons, just create the add and delete pairs ourself and then call diffcore_rename() directly. This change is primarily about enabling future optimizations; the advantage of avoiding extra tree traversals is small compared to the cost of rename detection, and the advantage of avoiding the extra tree traversals is somewhat offset by the extra time spent in collect_merge_info() collecting the additional data anyway. However... For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 13.294 s ± 0.103 s 12.775 s ± 0.062 s mega-renames: 187.248 s ± 0.882 s 188.754 s ± 0.284 s just-one-mega: 5.557 s ± 0.017 s 5.599 s ± 0.019 s Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-02-14 10:51:51 +03:00
resolve_diffpair_statuses(&diff_queued_diff);
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
if (diff_opts.needed_rename_limit > 0)
renames->redo_after_renames = 0;
if (diff_opts.needed_rename_limit > renames->needed_limit)
renames->needed_limit = diff_opts.needed_rename_limit;
renames->pairs[side_index] = diff_queued_diff;
diff_opts.output_format = DIFF_FORMAT_NO_OUTPUT;
diff_queued_diff.nr = 0;
diff_queued_diff.queue = NULL;
diff_flush(&diff_opts);
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
return 1;
}
/*
* Get information of all renames which occurred in 'side_pairs', making use
* of any implicit directory renames in side_dir_renames (also making use of
* implicit directory renames rename_exclusions as needed by
* check_for_directory_rename()). Add all (updated) renames into result.
*/
static int collect_renames(struct merge_options *opt,
struct diff_queue_struct *result,
unsigned side_index,
struct strmap *dir_renames_for_side,
struct strmap *rename_exclusions)
{
int i, clean = 1;
struct strmap collisions;
struct diff_queue_struct *side_pairs;
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *entry;
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
side_pairs = &renames->pairs[side_index];
compute_collisions(&collisions, dir_renames_for_side, side_pairs);
for (i = 0; i < side_pairs->nr; ++i) {
struct diff_filepair *p = side_pairs->queue[i];
char *new_path; /* non-NULL only with directory renames */
if (p->status != 'A' && p->status != 'R') {
possibly_cache_new_pair(renames, p, side_index, NULL);
diff_free_filepair(p);
continue;
}
new_path = check_for_directory_rename(opt, p->two->path,
side_index,
dir_renames_for_side,
rename_exclusions,
&collisions,
&clean);
possibly_cache_new_pair(renames, p, side_index, new_path);
if (p->status != 'R' && !new_path) {
diff_free_filepair(p);
continue;
}
if (new_path)
apply_directory_rename_modifications(opt, p, new_path);
/*
* p->score comes back from diffcore_rename_extended() with
* the similarity of the renamed file. The similarity is
* was used to determine that the two files were related
* and are a rename, which we have already used, but beyond
* that we have no use for the similarity. So p->score is
* now irrelevant. However, process_renames() will need to
* know which side of the merge this rename was associated
* with, so overwrite p->score with that value.
*/
p->score = side_index;
result->queue[result->nr++] = p;
}
/* Free each value in the collisions map */
strmap_for_each_entry(&collisions, &iter, entry) {
struct collision_info *info = entry->value;
string_list_clear(&info->source_files, 0);
}
/*
* In compute_collisions(), we set collisions.strdup_strings to 0
* so that we wouldn't have to make another copy of the new_path
* allocated by apply_dir_rename(). But now that we've used them
* and have no other references to these strings, it is time to
* deallocate them.
*/
free_strmap_strings(&collisions);
strmap_clear(&collisions, 1);
return clean;
}
static int detect_and_process_renames(struct merge_options *opt,
struct tree *merge_base,
struct tree *side1,
struct tree *side2)
{
struct diff_queue_struct combined;
struct rename_info *renames = &opt->priv->renames;
int need_dir_renames, s, clean = 1;
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
unsigned detection_run = 0;
memset(&combined, 0, sizeof(combined));
if (!possible_renames(renames))
goto cleanup;
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "regular renames", opt->repo);
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
detection_run |= detect_regular_renames(opt, MERGE_SIDE1);
detection_run |= detect_regular_renames(opt, MERGE_SIDE2);
if (renames->redo_after_renames && detection_run) {
int i, side;
struct diff_filepair *p;
/* Cache the renames, we found */
for (side = MERGE_SIDE1; side <= MERGE_SIDE2; side++) {
for (i = 0; i < renames->pairs[side].nr; ++i) {
p = renames->pairs[side].queue[i];
possibly_cache_new_pair(renames, p, side, NULL);
}
}
/* Restart the merge with the cached renames */
renames->redo_after_renames = 2;
trace2_region_leave("merge", "regular renames", opt->repo);
goto cleanup;
}
merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible When there are many renames between the old base of a series of commits and the new base, the way sequencer.c, merge-recursive.c, and diffcore-rename.c have traditionally split the work resulted in redetecting the same renames with each and every commit being transplanted. To address this, the last several commits have been creating a cache of rename detection results, determining when it was safe to use such a cache in subsequent merge operations, adding helper functions, and so on. See the previous half dozen commit messages for additional discussion of this optimization, particularly the message a few commits ago entitled "add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused". This commit finally ties all of that work together, modifying the merge algorithm to make use of these cached renames. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.665 s ± 0.129 s 5.622 s ± 0.059 s mega-renames: 11.435 s ± 0.158 s 10.127 s ± 0.073 s just-one-mega: 494.2 ms ± 6.1 ms 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms That's a fairly small improvement, but mostly because the previous optimizations were so effective for these particular testcases; this optimization only kicks in when the others don't. If we undid the basename-guided rename detection and skip-irrelevant-renames optimizations, then we'd see that this series by itself improved performance as follows: Before Basename Series After Just This Series no-renames: 13.815 s ± 0.062 s 5.697 s ± 0.080 s mega-renames: 1799.937 s ± 0.493 s 205.709 s ± 0.457 s Since this optimization kicks in to help accelerate cases where the previous optimizations do not apply, this last comparison shows that this cached-renames optimization has the potential to help signficantly in cases that don't meet the requirements for the other optimizations to be effective. The changes made in this optimization also lay some important groundwork for a future optimization around having collect_merge_info() avoid recursing into subtrees in more cases. However, for this optimization to be effective, merge_switch_to_result() should only be called when the rebase or cherry-pick operation has either completed or hit a case where the user needs to resolve a conflict or edit the result. If it is called after every commit, as sequencer.c does, then the working tree and index are needlessly updated with every commit and the cached metadata is tossed, defeating this optimization. Refactoring sequencer.c to only call merge_switch_to_result() at the end of the operation is a bigger undertaking, and the practical benefits of this optimization will not be realized until that work is performed. Since `test-tool fast-rebase` only updates at the end of the operation, it was used to obtain the timings above. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:41 +03:00
use_cached_pairs(opt, &renames->cached_pairs[1], &renames->pairs[1]);
use_cached_pairs(opt, &renames->cached_pairs[2], &renames->pairs[2]);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "regular renames", opt->repo);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "directory renames", opt->repo);
need_dir_renames =
!opt->priv->call_depth &&
(opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_TRUE ||
opt->detect_directory_renames == MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_CONFLICT);
if (need_dir_renames) {
get_provisional_directory_renames(opt, MERGE_SIDE1, &clean);
get_provisional_directory_renames(opt, MERGE_SIDE2, &clean);
handle_directory_level_conflicts(opt);
}
ALLOC_GROW(combined.queue,
renames->pairs[1].nr + renames->pairs[2].nr,
combined.alloc);
clean &= collect_renames(opt, &combined, MERGE_SIDE1,
&renames->dir_renames[2],
&renames->dir_renames[1]);
clean &= collect_renames(opt, &combined, MERGE_SIDE2,
&renames->dir_renames[1],
&renames->dir_renames[2]);
STABLE_QSORT(combined.queue, combined.nr, compare_pairs);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "directory renames", opt->repo);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "process renames", opt->repo);
clean &= process_renames(opt, &combined);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "process renames", opt->repo);
goto simple_cleanup; /* collect_renames() handles some of cleanup */
cleanup:
/*
* Free now unneeded filepairs, which would have been handled
* in collect_renames() normally but we skipped that code.
*/
for (s = MERGE_SIDE1; s <= MERGE_SIDE2; s++) {
struct diff_queue_struct *side_pairs;
int i;
side_pairs = &renames->pairs[s];
for (i = 0; i < side_pairs->nr; ++i) {
struct diff_filepair *p = side_pairs->queue[i];
diff_free_filepair(p);
}
}
simple_cleanup:
/* Free memory for renames->pairs[] and combined */
for (s = MERGE_SIDE1; s <= MERGE_SIDE2; s++) {
free(renames->pairs[s].queue);
DIFF_QUEUE_CLEAR(&renames->pairs[s]);
}
if (combined.nr) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < combined.nr; i++)
diff_free_filepair(combined.queue[i]);
free(combined.queue);
}
return clean;
}
/*** Function Grouping: functions related to process_entries() ***/
merge-ort: replace string_list_df_name_compare with faster alternative Gathering accumulated times from trace2 output on the mega-renames testcase, I saw the following timings (where I'm only showing a few lines to highlight the portions of interest): 10.120 : label:incore_nonrecursive 4.462 : ..label:process_entries 3.143 : ....label:process_entries setup 2.988 : ......label:plist special sort 1.305 : ....label:processing 2.604 : ..label:collect_merge_info 2.018 : ..label:merge_start 1.018 : ..label:renames In the above output, note that the 4.462 seconds for process_entries was split as 3.143 seconds for "process_entries setup" and 1.305 seconds for "processing" (and a little time for other stuff removed from the highlight). Most of the "process_entries setup" time was spent on "plist special sort" which corresponds to the following code: trace2_region_enter("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); plist.cmp = string_list_df_name_compare; string_list_sort(&plist); trace2_region_leave("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); In other words, in a merge strategy that would be invoked by passing "-sort" to either rebase or merge, sorting an array takes more time than anything else. Serves me right for naming my merge strategy this way. Rewrite the comparison function in a way that does not require finding out the lengths of the strings when comparing them. While at it, tweak the code for our specific case -- no need to handle a variety of modes, for example. The combination of these changes reduced the time spent in "plist special sort" by ~25% in the mega-renames case. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.622 s ± 0.059 s 5.235 s ± 0.042 s mega-renames: 10.127 s ± 0.073 s 9.419 s ± 0.107 s just-one-mega: 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-08 19:11:39 +03:00
static int sort_dirs_next_to_their_children(const char *one, const char *two)
{
merge-ort: replace string_list_df_name_compare with faster alternative Gathering accumulated times from trace2 output on the mega-renames testcase, I saw the following timings (where I'm only showing a few lines to highlight the portions of interest): 10.120 : label:incore_nonrecursive 4.462 : ..label:process_entries 3.143 : ....label:process_entries setup 2.988 : ......label:plist special sort 1.305 : ....label:processing 2.604 : ..label:collect_merge_info 2.018 : ..label:merge_start 1.018 : ..label:renames In the above output, note that the 4.462 seconds for process_entries was split as 3.143 seconds for "process_entries setup" and 1.305 seconds for "processing" (and a little time for other stuff removed from the highlight). Most of the "process_entries setup" time was spent on "plist special sort" which corresponds to the following code: trace2_region_enter("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); plist.cmp = string_list_df_name_compare; string_list_sort(&plist); trace2_region_leave("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); In other words, in a merge strategy that would be invoked by passing "-sort" to either rebase or merge, sorting an array takes more time than anything else. Serves me right for naming my merge strategy this way. Rewrite the comparison function in a way that does not require finding out the lengths of the strings when comparing them. While at it, tweak the code for our specific case -- no need to handle a variety of modes, for example. The combination of these changes reduced the time spent in "plist special sort" by ~25% in the mega-renames case. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.622 s ± 0.059 s 5.235 s ± 0.042 s mega-renames: 10.127 s ± 0.073 s 9.419 s ± 0.107 s just-one-mega: 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-08 19:11:39 +03:00
unsigned char c1, c2;
/*
* Here we only care that entries for directories appear adjacent
* to and before files underneath the directory. We can achieve
* that by pretending to add a trailing slash to every file and
* then sorting. In other words, we do not want the natural
* sorting of
* foo
* foo.txt
* foo/bar
* Instead, we want "foo" to sort as though it were "foo/", so that
* we instead get
* foo.txt
* foo
* foo/bar
* To achieve this, we basically implement our own strcmp, except that
* if we get to the end of either string instead of comparing NUL to
* another character, we compare '/' to it.
*
* If this unusual "sort as though '/' were appended" perplexes
* you, perhaps it will help to note that this is not the final
* sort. write_tree() will sort again without the trailing slash
* magic, but just on paths immediately under a given tree.
*
merge-ort: replace string_list_df_name_compare with faster alternative Gathering accumulated times from trace2 output on the mega-renames testcase, I saw the following timings (where I'm only showing a few lines to highlight the portions of interest): 10.120 : label:incore_nonrecursive 4.462 : ..label:process_entries 3.143 : ....label:process_entries setup 2.988 : ......label:plist special sort 1.305 : ....label:processing 2.604 : ..label:collect_merge_info 2.018 : ..label:merge_start 1.018 : ..label:renames In the above output, note that the 4.462 seconds for process_entries was split as 3.143 seconds for "process_entries setup" and 1.305 seconds for "processing" (and a little time for other stuff removed from the highlight). Most of the "process_entries setup" time was spent on "plist special sort" which corresponds to the following code: trace2_region_enter("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); plist.cmp = string_list_df_name_compare; string_list_sort(&plist); trace2_region_leave("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); In other words, in a merge strategy that would be invoked by passing "-sort" to either rebase or merge, sorting an array takes more time than anything else. Serves me right for naming my merge strategy this way. Rewrite the comparison function in a way that does not require finding out the lengths of the strings when comparing them. While at it, tweak the code for our specific case -- no need to handle a variety of modes, for example. The combination of these changes reduced the time spent in "plist special sort" by ~25% in the mega-renames case. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.622 s ± 0.059 s 5.235 s ± 0.042 s mega-renames: 10.127 s ± 0.073 s 9.419 s ± 0.107 s just-one-mega: 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-08 19:11:39 +03:00
* The reason to not use df_name_compare directly was that it was
* just too expensive (we don't have the string lengths handy), so
* it was reimplemented.
*/
merge-ort: replace string_list_df_name_compare with faster alternative Gathering accumulated times from trace2 output on the mega-renames testcase, I saw the following timings (where I'm only showing a few lines to highlight the portions of interest): 10.120 : label:incore_nonrecursive 4.462 : ..label:process_entries 3.143 : ....label:process_entries setup 2.988 : ......label:plist special sort 1.305 : ....label:processing 2.604 : ..label:collect_merge_info 2.018 : ..label:merge_start 1.018 : ..label:renames In the above output, note that the 4.462 seconds for process_entries was split as 3.143 seconds for "process_entries setup" and 1.305 seconds for "processing" (and a little time for other stuff removed from the highlight). Most of the "process_entries setup" time was spent on "plist special sort" which corresponds to the following code: trace2_region_enter("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); plist.cmp = string_list_df_name_compare; string_list_sort(&plist); trace2_region_leave("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); In other words, in a merge strategy that would be invoked by passing "-sort" to either rebase or merge, sorting an array takes more time than anything else. Serves me right for naming my merge strategy this way. Rewrite the comparison function in a way that does not require finding out the lengths of the strings when comparing them. While at it, tweak the code for our specific case -- no need to handle a variety of modes, for example. The combination of these changes reduced the time spent in "plist special sort" by ~25% in the mega-renames case. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.622 s ± 0.059 s 5.235 s ± 0.042 s mega-renames: 10.127 s ± 0.073 s 9.419 s ± 0.107 s just-one-mega: 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-08 19:11:39 +03:00
/*
merge-ort: replace string_list_df_name_compare with faster alternative Gathering accumulated times from trace2 output on the mega-renames testcase, I saw the following timings (where I'm only showing a few lines to highlight the portions of interest): 10.120 : label:incore_nonrecursive 4.462 : ..label:process_entries 3.143 : ....label:process_entries setup 2.988 : ......label:plist special sort 1.305 : ....label:processing 2.604 : ..label:collect_merge_info 2.018 : ..label:merge_start 1.018 : ..label:renames In the above output, note that the 4.462 seconds for process_entries was split as 3.143 seconds for "process_entries setup" and 1.305 seconds for "processing" (and a little time for other stuff removed from the highlight). Most of the "process_entries setup" time was spent on "plist special sort" which corresponds to the following code: trace2_region_enter("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); plist.cmp = string_list_df_name_compare; string_list_sort(&plist); trace2_region_leave("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); In other words, in a merge strategy that would be invoked by passing "-sort" to either rebase or merge, sorting an array takes more time than anything else. Serves me right for naming my merge strategy this way. Rewrite the comparison function in a way that does not require finding out the lengths of the strings when comparing them. While at it, tweak the code for our specific case -- no need to handle a variety of modes, for example. The combination of these changes reduced the time spent in "plist special sort" by ~25% in the mega-renames case. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.622 s ± 0.059 s 5.235 s ± 0.042 s mega-renames: 10.127 s ± 0.073 s 9.419 s ± 0.107 s just-one-mega: 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-08 19:11:39 +03:00
* NOTE: This function will never be called with two equal strings,
* because it is used to sort the keys of a strmap, and strmaps have
* unique keys by construction. That simplifies our c1==c2 handling
* below.
*/
merge-ort: replace string_list_df_name_compare with faster alternative Gathering accumulated times from trace2 output on the mega-renames testcase, I saw the following timings (where I'm only showing a few lines to highlight the portions of interest): 10.120 : label:incore_nonrecursive 4.462 : ..label:process_entries 3.143 : ....label:process_entries setup 2.988 : ......label:plist special sort 1.305 : ....label:processing 2.604 : ..label:collect_merge_info 2.018 : ..label:merge_start 1.018 : ..label:renames In the above output, note that the 4.462 seconds for process_entries was split as 3.143 seconds for "process_entries setup" and 1.305 seconds for "processing" (and a little time for other stuff removed from the highlight). Most of the "process_entries setup" time was spent on "plist special sort" which corresponds to the following code: trace2_region_enter("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); plist.cmp = string_list_df_name_compare; string_list_sort(&plist); trace2_region_leave("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); In other words, in a merge strategy that would be invoked by passing "-sort" to either rebase or merge, sorting an array takes more time than anything else. Serves me right for naming my merge strategy this way. Rewrite the comparison function in a way that does not require finding out the lengths of the strings when comparing them. While at it, tweak the code for our specific case -- no need to handle a variety of modes, for example. The combination of these changes reduced the time spent in "plist special sort" by ~25% in the mega-renames case. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.622 s ± 0.059 s 5.235 s ± 0.042 s mega-renames: 10.127 s ± 0.073 s 9.419 s ± 0.107 s just-one-mega: 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-08 19:11:39 +03:00
while (*one && (*one == *two)) {
one++;
two++;
}
c1 = *one ? *one : '/';
c2 = *two ? *two : '/';
if (c1 == c2) {
/* Getting here means one is a leading directory of the other */
return (*one) ? 1 : -1;
} else
return c1 - c2;
}
static int read_oid_strbuf(struct merge_options *opt,
const struct object_id *oid,
struct strbuf *dst)
{
void *buf;
enum object_type type;
unsigned long size;
buf = read_object_file(oid, &type, &size);
if (!buf)
return err(opt, _("cannot read object %s"), oid_to_hex(oid));
if (type != OBJ_BLOB) {
free(buf);
return err(opt, _("object %s is not a blob"), oid_to_hex(oid));
}
strbuf_attach(dst, buf, size, size + 1);
return 0;
}
static int blob_unchanged(struct merge_options *opt,
const struct version_info *base,
const struct version_info *side,
const char *path)
{
struct strbuf basebuf = STRBUF_INIT;
struct strbuf sidebuf = STRBUF_INIT;
int ret = 0; /* assume changed for safety */
struct index_state *idx = &opt->priv->attr_index;
if (!idx->initialized)
initialize_attr_index(opt);
if (base->mode != side->mode)
return 0;
if (oideq(&base->oid, &side->oid))
return 1;
if (read_oid_strbuf(opt, &base->oid, &basebuf) ||
read_oid_strbuf(opt, &side->oid, &sidebuf))
goto error_return;
/*
* Note: binary | is used so that both renormalizations are
* performed. Comparison can be skipped if both files are
* unchanged since their sha1s have already been compared.
*/
if (renormalize_buffer(idx, path, basebuf.buf, basebuf.len, &basebuf) |
renormalize_buffer(idx, path, sidebuf.buf, sidebuf.len, &sidebuf))
ret = (basebuf.len == sidebuf.len &&
!memcmp(basebuf.buf, sidebuf.buf, basebuf.len));
error_return:
strbuf_release(&basebuf);
strbuf_release(&sidebuf);
return ret;
}
struct directory_versions {
merge-ort: step 3 of tree writing -- handling subdirectories as we go Our order for processing of entries means that if we have a tree of files that looks like Makefile src/moduleA/foo.c src/moduleA/bar.c src/moduleB/baz.c src/moduleB/umm.c tokens.txt Then we will process paths in the order of the leftmost column below. I have added two additional columns that help explain the algorithm that follows; the 2nd column is there to remind us we have oid & mode info we are tracking for each of these paths (which differs between the paths which I'm not representing well here), and the third column annotates the parent directory of the entry: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB <version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA <version_info> src src <version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" When the parent directory changes, if it's a subdirectory of the previous parent directory (e.g. "" -> src/moduleB) then we can just keep appending. If the parent directory differs from the previous parent directory and is not a subdirectory, then we should process that directory. So, for example, when we get to this point: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB and note that the next entry (src/moduleB) has a different parent than the last one that isn't a subdirectory, we should write out a tree for it 100644 blob <HASH> umm.c 100644 blob <HASH> baz.c then pop all the entries under that directory while recording the new hash for that directory, leaving us with tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB <new version_info> src This process repeats until at the end we get to tokens.txt <version_info> "" src <new version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" and then we can write out the toplevel tree. Since we potentially have entries in our string_list corresponding to multiple different toplevel directories, e.g. a slightly different repository might have: whizbang.txt <version_info> "" tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleD <new version_info> src src/moduleC <new version_info> src src/moduleB <new version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA When src/moduleA is popped off, we need to know that the "last directory" reverts back to src, and how many entries in our string_list are associated with that parent directory. So I use an auxiliary offsets string_list which would have (parent_directory,offset) information of the form "" 0 src 2 src/moduleA 5 Whenever I write out a tree for a subdirectory, I set versions.nr to the final offset value and then decrement offsets.nr...and then add an entry to versions with a hash for the new directory. The idea is relatively simple, there's just a lot of accounting to implement this. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:22 +03:00
/*
* versions: list of (basename -> version_info)
*
* The basenames are in reverse lexicographic order of full pathnames,
* as processed in process_entries(). This puts all entries within
* a directory together, and covers the directory itself after
* everything within it, allowing us to write subtrees before needing
* to record information for the tree itself.
*/
struct string_list versions;
merge-ort: step 3 of tree writing -- handling subdirectories as we go Our order for processing of entries means that if we have a tree of files that looks like Makefile src/moduleA/foo.c src/moduleA/bar.c src/moduleB/baz.c src/moduleB/umm.c tokens.txt Then we will process paths in the order of the leftmost column below. I have added two additional columns that help explain the algorithm that follows; the 2nd column is there to remind us we have oid & mode info we are tracking for each of these paths (which differs between the paths which I'm not representing well here), and the third column annotates the parent directory of the entry: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB <version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA <version_info> src src <version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" When the parent directory changes, if it's a subdirectory of the previous parent directory (e.g. "" -> src/moduleB) then we can just keep appending. If the parent directory differs from the previous parent directory and is not a subdirectory, then we should process that directory. So, for example, when we get to this point: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB and note that the next entry (src/moduleB) has a different parent than the last one that isn't a subdirectory, we should write out a tree for it 100644 blob <HASH> umm.c 100644 blob <HASH> baz.c then pop all the entries under that directory while recording the new hash for that directory, leaving us with tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB <new version_info> src This process repeats until at the end we get to tokens.txt <version_info> "" src <new version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" and then we can write out the toplevel tree. Since we potentially have entries in our string_list corresponding to multiple different toplevel directories, e.g. a slightly different repository might have: whizbang.txt <version_info> "" tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleD <new version_info> src src/moduleC <new version_info> src src/moduleB <new version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA When src/moduleA is popped off, we need to know that the "last directory" reverts back to src, and how many entries in our string_list are associated with that parent directory. So I use an auxiliary offsets string_list which would have (parent_directory,offset) information of the form "" 0 src 2 src/moduleA 5 Whenever I write out a tree for a subdirectory, I set versions.nr to the final offset value and then decrement offsets.nr...and then add an entry to versions with a hash for the new directory. The idea is relatively simple, there's just a lot of accounting to implement this. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:22 +03:00
/*
* offsets: list of (full relative path directories -> integer offsets)
*
* Since versions contains basenames from files in multiple different
* directories, we need to know which entries in versions correspond
* to which directories. Values of e.g.
* "" 0
* src 2
* src/moduleA 5
* Would mean that entries 0-1 of versions are files in the toplevel
* directory, entries 2-4 are files under src/, and the remaining
* entries starting at index 5 are files under src/moduleA/.
*/
struct string_list offsets;
/*
* last_directory: directory that previously processed file found in
*
* last_directory starts NULL, but records the directory in which the
* previous file was found within. As soon as
* directory(current_file) != last_directory
* then we need to start updating accounting in versions & offsets.
* Note that last_directory is always the last path in "offsets" (or
* NULL if "offsets" is empty) so this exists just for quick access.
*/
const char *last_directory;
/* last_directory_len: cached computation of strlen(last_directory) */
unsigned last_directory_len;
};
static int tree_entry_order(const void *a_, const void *b_)
{
const struct string_list_item *a = a_;
const struct string_list_item *b = b_;
const struct merged_info *ami = a->util;
const struct merged_info *bmi = b->util;
return base_name_compare(a->string, strlen(a->string), ami->result.mode,
b->string, strlen(b->string), bmi->result.mode);
}
static void write_tree(struct object_id *result_oid,
struct string_list *versions,
unsigned int offset,
size_t hash_size)
{
size_t maxlen = 0, extra;
merge-ort: only do pointer arithmetic for non-empty lists versions could be an empty string_list. In that case, versions->items is NULL, and we shouldn't be trying to perform pointer arithmetic with it (as that results in undefined behaviour). Moreover we only use the results of this calculation once when calling QSORT. Therefore we choose to skip creating relevant_entries and call QSORT directly with our manipulated pointers (but only if there's data requiring sorting). This lets us avoid abusing the string_list API, and saves us from having to explain why this abuse is OK. Finally, an assertion is added to make sure that write_tree() is called with a valid offset. This issue has probably existed since: ee4012dcf9 (merge-ort: step 2 of tree writing -- function to create tree object, 2020-12-13) But it only started occurring during tests since tests started using merge-ort: f3b964a07e (Add testing with merge-ort merge strategy, 2021-03-20) For reference - here's the original UBSAN commit that implemented this check, it sounds like this behaviour isn't actually likely to cause any issues (but we might as well fix it regardless): https://reviews.llvm.org/D67122 UBSAN output from t3404 or t5601: merge-ort.c:2669:43: runtime error: applying zero offset to null pointer #0 0x78bb53 in write_tree merge-ort.c:2669:43 #1 0x7856c9 in process_entries merge-ort.c:3303:2 #2 0x782317 in merge_ort_nonrecursive_internal merge-ort.c:3744:2 #3 0x77feef in merge_incore_nonrecursive merge-ort.c:3853:2 #4 0x6f6a5c in do_recursive_merge sequencer.c:640:3 #5 0x6f6a5c in do_pick_commit sequencer.c:2221:9 #6 0x6ef055 in single_pick sequencer.c:4814:9 #7 0x6ef055 in sequencer_pick_revisions sequencer.c:4867:10 #8 0x4fb392 in run_sequencer revert.c:225:9 #9 0x4fa5b0 in cmd_revert revert.c:235:8 #10 0x42abd7 in run_builtin git.c:453:11 #11 0x429531 in handle_builtin git.c:704:3 #12 0x4282fb in run_argv git.c:771:4 #13 0x4282fb in cmd_main git.c:902:19 #14 0x524b63 in main common-main.c:52:11 #15 0x7fc2ca340349 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x24349) #16 0x4072b9 in _start start.S:120 SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior merge-ort.c:2669:43 in Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hunt <ajrhunt@google.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-04-11 14:05:06 +03:00
unsigned int nr;
struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
int i;
merge-ort: only do pointer arithmetic for non-empty lists versions could be an empty string_list. In that case, versions->items is NULL, and we shouldn't be trying to perform pointer arithmetic with it (as that results in undefined behaviour). Moreover we only use the results of this calculation once when calling QSORT. Therefore we choose to skip creating relevant_entries and call QSORT directly with our manipulated pointers (but only if there's data requiring sorting). This lets us avoid abusing the string_list API, and saves us from having to explain why this abuse is OK. Finally, an assertion is added to make sure that write_tree() is called with a valid offset. This issue has probably existed since: ee4012dcf9 (merge-ort: step 2 of tree writing -- function to create tree object, 2020-12-13) But it only started occurring during tests since tests started using merge-ort: f3b964a07e (Add testing with merge-ort merge strategy, 2021-03-20) For reference - here's the original UBSAN commit that implemented this check, it sounds like this behaviour isn't actually likely to cause any issues (but we might as well fix it regardless): https://reviews.llvm.org/D67122 UBSAN output from t3404 or t5601: merge-ort.c:2669:43: runtime error: applying zero offset to null pointer #0 0x78bb53 in write_tree merge-ort.c:2669:43 #1 0x7856c9 in process_entries merge-ort.c:3303:2 #2 0x782317 in merge_ort_nonrecursive_internal merge-ort.c:3744:2 #3 0x77feef in merge_incore_nonrecursive merge-ort.c:3853:2 #4 0x6f6a5c in do_recursive_merge sequencer.c:640:3 #5 0x6f6a5c in do_pick_commit sequencer.c:2221:9 #6 0x6ef055 in single_pick sequencer.c:4814:9 #7 0x6ef055 in sequencer_pick_revisions sequencer.c:4867:10 #8 0x4fb392 in run_sequencer revert.c:225:9 #9 0x4fa5b0 in cmd_revert revert.c:235:8 #10 0x42abd7 in run_builtin git.c:453:11 #11 0x429531 in handle_builtin git.c:704:3 #12 0x4282fb in run_argv git.c:771:4 #13 0x4282fb in cmd_main git.c:902:19 #14 0x524b63 in main common-main.c:52:11 #15 0x7fc2ca340349 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x24349) #16 0x4072b9 in _start start.S:120 SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior merge-ort.c:2669:43 in Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hunt <ajrhunt@google.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-04-11 14:05:06 +03:00
assert(offset <= versions->nr);
nr = versions->nr - offset;
if (versions->nr)
/* No need for STABLE_QSORT -- filenames must be unique */
merge-ort: only do pointer arithmetic for non-empty lists versions could be an empty string_list. In that case, versions->items is NULL, and we shouldn't be trying to perform pointer arithmetic with it (as that results in undefined behaviour). Moreover we only use the results of this calculation once when calling QSORT. Therefore we choose to skip creating relevant_entries and call QSORT directly with our manipulated pointers (but only if there's data requiring sorting). This lets us avoid abusing the string_list API, and saves us from having to explain why this abuse is OK. Finally, an assertion is added to make sure that write_tree() is called with a valid offset. This issue has probably existed since: ee4012dcf9 (merge-ort: step 2 of tree writing -- function to create tree object, 2020-12-13) But it only started occurring during tests since tests started using merge-ort: f3b964a07e (Add testing with merge-ort merge strategy, 2021-03-20) For reference - here's the original UBSAN commit that implemented this check, it sounds like this behaviour isn't actually likely to cause any issues (but we might as well fix it regardless): https://reviews.llvm.org/D67122 UBSAN output from t3404 or t5601: merge-ort.c:2669:43: runtime error: applying zero offset to null pointer #0 0x78bb53 in write_tree merge-ort.c:2669:43 #1 0x7856c9 in process_entries merge-ort.c:3303:2 #2 0x782317 in merge_ort_nonrecursive_internal merge-ort.c:3744:2 #3 0x77feef in merge_incore_nonrecursive merge-ort.c:3853:2 #4 0x6f6a5c in do_recursive_merge sequencer.c:640:3 #5 0x6f6a5c in do_pick_commit sequencer.c:2221:9 #6 0x6ef055 in single_pick sequencer.c:4814:9 #7 0x6ef055 in sequencer_pick_revisions sequencer.c:4867:10 #8 0x4fb392 in run_sequencer revert.c:225:9 #9 0x4fa5b0 in cmd_revert revert.c:235:8 #10 0x42abd7 in run_builtin git.c:453:11 #11 0x429531 in handle_builtin git.c:704:3 #12 0x4282fb in run_argv git.c:771:4 #13 0x4282fb in cmd_main git.c:902:19 #14 0x524b63 in main common-main.c:52:11 #15 0x7fc2ca340349 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x24349) #16 0x4072b9 in _start start.S:120 SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior merge-ort.c:2669:43 in Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hunt <ajrhunt@google.com> Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-04-11 14:05:06 +03:00
QSORT(versions->items + offset, nr, tree_entry_order);
/* Pre-allocate some space in buf */
extra = hash_size + 8; /* 8: 6 for mode, 1 for space, 1 for NUL char */
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
maxlen += strlen(versions->items[offset+i].string) + extra;
}
strbuf_grow(&buf, maxlen);
/* Write each entry out to buf */
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
struct merged_info *mi = versions->items[offset+i].util;
struct version_info *ri = &mi->result;
strbuf_addf(&buf, "%o %s%c",
ri->mode,
versions->items[offset+i].string, '\0');
strbuf_add(&buf, ri->oid.hash, hash_size);
}
/* Write this object file out, and record in result_oid */
write_object_file(buf.buf, buf.len, tree_type, result_oid);
strbuf_release(&buf);
}
static void record_entry_for_tree(struct directory_versions *dir_metadata,
const char *path,
struct merged_info *mi)
{
const char *basename;
if (mi->is_null)
/* nothing to record */
return;
basename = path + mi->basename_offset;
assert(strchr(basename, '/') == NULL);
string_list_append(&dir_metadata->versions,
basename)->util = &mi->result;
}
merge-ort: step 3 of tree writing -- handling subdirectories as we go Our order for processing of entries means that if we have a tree of files that looks like Makefile src/moduleA/foo.c src/moduleA/bar.c src/moduleB/baz.c src/moduleB/umm.c tokens.txt Then we will process paths in the order of the leftmost column below. I have added two additional columns that help explain the algorithm that follows; the 2nd column is there to remind us we have oid & mode info we are tracking for each of these paths (which differs between the paths which I'm not representing well here), and the third column annotates the parent directory of the entry: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB <version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA <version_info> src src <version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" When the parent directory changes, if it's a subdirectory of the previous parent directory (e.g. "" -> src/moduleB) then we can just keep appending. If the parent directory differs from the previous parent directory and is not a subdirectory, then we should process that directory. So, for example, when we get to this point: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB and note that the next entry (src/moduleB) has a different parent than the last one that isn't a subdirectory, we should write out a tree for it 100644 blob <HASH> umm.c 100644 blob <HASH> baz.c then pop all the entries under that directory while recording the new hash for that directory, leaving us with tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB <new version_info> src This process repeats until at the end we get to tokens.txt <version_info> "" src <new version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" and then we can write out the toplevel tree. Since we potentially have entries in our string_list corresponding to multiple different toplevel directories, e.g. a slightly different repository might have: whizbang.txt <version_info> "" tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleD <new version_info> src src/moduleC <new version_info> src src/moduleB <new version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA When src/moduleA is popped off, we need to know that the "last directory" reverts back to src, and how many entries in our string_list are associated with that parent directory. So I use an auxiliary offsets string_list which would have (parent_directory,offset) information of the form "" 0 src 2 src/moduleA 5 Whenever I write out a tree for a subdirectory, I set versions.nr to the final offset value and then decrement offsets.nr...and then add an entry to versions with a hash for the new directory. The idea is relatively simple, there's just a lot of accounting to implement this. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:22 +03:00
static void write_completed_directory(struct merge_options *opt,
const char *new_directory_name,
struct directory_versions *info)
{
const char *prev_dir;
struct merged_info *dir_info = NULL;
unsigned int offset;
/*
* Some explanation of info->versions and info->offsets...
*
* process_entries() iterates over all relevant files AND
* directories in reverse lexicographic order, and calls this
* function. Thus, an example of the paths that process_entries()
* could operate on (along with the directories for those paths
* being shown) is:
*
* xtract.c ""
* tokens.txt ""
* src/moduleB/umm.c src/moduleB
* src/moduleB/stuff.h src/moduleB
* src/moduleB/baz.c src/moduleB
* src/moduleB src
* src/moduleA/foo.c src/moduleA
* src/moduleA/bar.c src/moduleA
* src/moduleA src
* src ""
* Makefile ""
*
* info->versions:
*
* always contains the unprocessed entries and their
* version_info information. For example, after the first five
* entries above, info->versions would be:
*
* xtract.c <xtract.c's version_info>
* token.txt <token.txt's version_info>
* umm.c <src/moduleB/umm.c's version_info>
* stuff.h <src/moduleB/stuff.h's version_info>
* baz.c <src/moduleB/baz.c's version_info>
*
* Once a subdirectory is completed we remove the entries in
* that subdirectory from info->versions, writing it as a tree
* (write_tree()). Thus, as soon as we get to src/moduleB,
* info->versions would be updated to
*
* xtract.c <xtract.c's version_info>
* token.txt <token.txt's version_info>
* moduleB <src/moduleB's version_info>
*
* info->offsets:
*
* helps us track which entries in info->versions correspond to
* which directories. When we are N directories deep (e.g. 4
* for src/modA/submod/subdir/), we have up to N+1 unprocessed
* directories (+1 because of toplevel dir). Corresponding to
* the info->versions example above, after processing five entries
* info->offsets will be:
*
* "" 0
* src/moduleB 2
*
* which is used to know that xtract.c & token.txt are from the
* toplevel dirctory, while umm.c & stuff.h & baz.c are from the
* src/moduleB directory. Again, following the example above,
* once we need to process src/moduleB, then info->offsets is
* updated to
*
* "" 0
* src 2
*
* which says that moduleB (and only moduleB so far) is in the
* src directory.
*
* One unique thing to note about info->offsets here is that
* "src" was not added to info->offsets until there was a path
* (a file OR directory) immediately below src/ that got
* processed.
*
* Since process_entry() just appends new entries to info->versions,
* write_completed_directory() only needs to do work if the next path
* is in a directory that is different than the last directory found
* in info->offsets.
*/
/*
* If we are working with the same directory as the last entry, there
* is no work to do. (See comments above the directory_name member of
* struct merged_info for why we can use pointer comparison instead of
* strcmp here.)
*/
if (new_directory_name == info->last_directory)
return;
/*
* If we are just starting (last_directory is NULL), or last_directory
* is a prefix of the current directory, then we can just update
* info->offsets to record the offset where we started this directory
* and update last_directory to have quick access to it.
*/
if (info->last_directory == NULL ||
!strncmp(new_directory_name, info->last_directory,
info->last_directory_len)) {
uintptr_t offset = info->versions.nr;
info->last_directory = new_directory_name;
info->last_directory_len = strlen(info->last_directory);
/*
* Record the offset into info->versions where we will
* start recording basenames of paths found within
* new_directory_name.
*/
string_list_append(&info->offsets,
info->last_directory)->util = (void*)offset;
return;
}
/*
* The next entry that will be processed will be within
* new_directory_name. Since at this point we know that
* new_directory_name is within a different directory than
* info->last_directory, we have all entries for info->last_directory
* in info->versions and we need to create a tree object for them.
*/
dir_info = strmap_get(&opt->priv->paths, info->last_directory);
assert(dir_info);
offset = (uintptr_t)info->offsets.items[info->offsets.nr-1].util;
if (offset == info->versions.nr) {
/*
* Actually, we don't need to create a tree object in this
* case. Whenever all files within a directory disappear
* during the merge (e.g. unmodified on one side and
* deleted on the other, or files were renamed elsewhere),
* then we get here and the directory itself needs to be
* omitted from its parent tree as well.
*/
dir_info->is_null = 1;
} else {
/*
* Write out the tree to the git object directory, and also
* record the mode and oid in dir_info->result.
*/
dir_info->is_null = 0;
dir_info->result.mode = S_IFDIR;
write_tree(&dir_info->result.oid, &info->versions, offset,
opt->repo->hash_algo->rawsz);
}
/*
* We've now used several entries from info->versions and one entry
* from info->offsets, so we get rid of those values.
*/
info->offsets.nr--;
info->versions.nr = offset;
/*
* Now we've taken care of the completed directory, but we need to
* prepare things since future entries will be in
* new_directory_name. (In particular, process_entry() will be
* appending new entries to info->versions.) So, we need to make
* sure new_directory_name is the last entry in info->offsets.
*/
prev_dir = info->offsets.nr == 0 ? NULL :
info->offsets.items[info->offsets.nr-1].string;
if (new_directory_name != prev_dir) {
uintptr_t c = info->versions.nr;
string_list_append(&info->offsets,
new_directory_name)->util = (void*)c;
}
/* And, of course, we need to update last_directory to match. */
info->last_directory = new_directory_name;
info->last_directory_len = strlen(info->last_directory);
}
/* Per entry merge function */
static void process_entry(struct merge_options *opt,
const char *path,
struct conflict_info *ci,
struct directory_versions *dir_metadata)
{
int df_file_index = 0;
VERIFY_CI(ci);
assert(ci->filemask >= 0 && ci->filemask <= 7);
/* ci->match_mask == 7 was handled in collect_merge_info_callback() */
assert(ci->match_mask == 0 || ci->match_mask == 3 ||
ci->match_mask == 5 || ci->match_mask == 6);
if (ci->dirmask) {
record_entry_for_tree(dir_metadata, path, &ci->merged);
if (ci->filemask == 0)
/* nothing else to handle */
return;
assert(ci->df_conflict);
}
if (ci->df_conflict && ci->merged.result.mode == 0) {
int i;
/*
* directory no longer in the way, but we do have a file we
* need to place here so we need to clean away the "directory
* merges to nothing" result.
*/
ci->df_conflict = 0;
assert(ci->filemask != 0);
ci->merged.clean = 0;
ci->merged.is_null = 0;
/* and we want to zero out any directory-related entries */
ci->match_mask = (ci->match_mask & ~ci->dirmask);
ci->dirmask = 0;
for (i = MERGE_BASE; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; i++) {
if (ci->filemask & (1 << i))
continue;
ci->stages[i].mode = 0;
oidcpy(&ci->stages[i].oid, null_oid());
}
} else if (ci->df_conflict && ci->merged.result.mode != 0) {
/*
* This started out as a D/F conflict, and the entries in
* the competing directory were not removed by the merge as
* evidenced by write_completed_directory() writing a value
* to ci->merged.result.mode.
*/
struct conflict_info *new_ci;
const char *branch;
const char *old_path = path;
int i;
assert(ci->merged.result.mode == S_IFDIR);
/*
* If filemask is 1, we can just ignore the file as having
* been deleted on both sides. We do not want to overwrite
* ci->merged.result, since it stores the tree for all the
* files under it.
*/
if (ci->filemask == 1) {
ci->filemask = 0;
return;
}
/*
* This file still exists on at least one side, and we want
* the directory to remain here, so we need to move this
* path to some new location.
*/
CALLOC_ARRAY(new_ci, 1);
/* We don't really want new_ci->merged.result copied, but it'll
* be overwritten below so it doesn't matter. We also don't
* want any directory mode/oid values copied, but we'll zero
* those out immediately. We do want the rest of ci copied.
*/
memcpy(new_ci, ci, sizeof(*ci));
new_ci->match_mask = (new_ci->match_mask & ~new_ci->dirmask);
new_ci->dirmask = 0;
for (i = MERGE_BASE; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; i++) {
if (new_ci->filemask & (1 << i))
continue;
/* zero out any entries related to directories */
new_ci->stages[i].mode = 0;
oidcpy(&new_ci->stages[i].oid, null_oid());
}
/*
* Find out which side this file came from; note that we
* cannot just use ci->filemask, because renames could cause
* the filemask to go back to 7. So we use dirmask, then
* pick the opposite side's index.
*/
df_file_index = (ci->dirmask & (1 << 1)) ? 2 : 1;
branch = (df_file_index == 1) ? opt->branch1 : opt->branch2;
path = unique_path(&opt->priv->paths, path, branch);
strmap_put(&opt->priv->paths, path, new_ci);
path_msg(opt, path, 0,
_("CONFLICT (file/directory): directory in the way "
"of %s from %s; moving it to %s instead."),
old_path, branch, path);
/*
* Zero out the filemask for the old ci. At this point, ci
* was just an entry for a directory, so we don't need to
* do anything more with it.
*/
ci->filemask = 0;
/*
* Now note that we're working on the new entry (path was
* updated above.
*/
ci = new_ci;
}
/*
* NOTE: Below there is a long switch-like if-elseif-elseif... block
* which the code goes through even for the df_conflict cases
* above.
*/
if (ci->match_mask) {
ci->merged.clean = !ci->df_conflict && !ci->path_conflict;
if (ci->match_mask == 6) {
/* stages[1] == stages[2] */
ci->merged.result.mode = ci->stages[1].mode;
oidcpy(&ci->merged.result.oid, &ci->stages[1].oid);
} else {
/* determine the mask of the side that didn't match */
unsigned int othermask = 7 & ~ci->match_mask;
int side = (othermask == 4) ? 2 : 1;
ci->merged.result.mode = ci->stages[side].mode;
ci->merged.is_null = !ci->merged.result.mode;
if (ci->merged.is_null)
ci->merged.clean = 1;
oidcpy(&ci->merged.result.oid, &ci->stages[side].oid);
assert(othermask == 2 || othermask == 4);
assert(ci->merged.is_null ==
(ci->filemask == ci->match_mask));
}
} else if (ci->filemask >= 6 &&
(S_IFMT & ci->stages[1].mode) !=
(S_IFMT & ci->stages[2].mode)) {
/* Two different items from (file/submodule/symlink) */
if (opt->priv->call_depth) {
/* Just use the version from the merge base */
ci->merged.clean = 0;
oidcpy(&ci->merged.result.oid, &ci->stages[0].oid);
ci->merged.result.mode = ci->stages[0].mode;
ci->merged.is_null = (ci->merged.result.mode == 0);
} else {
/* Handle by renaming one or both to separate paths. */
unsigned o_mode = ci->stages[0].mode;
unsigned a_mode = ci->stages[1].mode;
unsigned b_mode = ci->stages[2].mode;
struct conflict_info *new_ci;
const char *a_path = NULL, *b_path = NULL;
int rename_a = 0, rename_b = 0;
new_ci = xmalloc(sizeof(*new_ci));
if (S_ISREG(a_mode))
rename_a = 1;
else if (S_ISREG(b_mode))
rename_b = 1;
else {
rename_a = 1;
rename_b = 1;
}
if (rename_a && rename_b) {
path_msg(opt, path, 0,
_("CONFLICT (distinct types): %s had "
"different types on each side; "
"renamed both of them so each can "
"be recorded somewhere."),
path);
} else {
path_msg(opt, path, 0,
_("CONFLICT (distinct types): %s had "
"different types on each side; "
"renamed one of them so each can be "
"recorded somewhere."),
path);
}
ci->merged.clean = 0;
memcpy(new_ci, ci, sizeof(*new_ci));
/* Put b into new_ci, removing a from stages */
new_ci->merged.result.mode = ci->stages[2].mode;
oidcpy(&new_ci->merged.result.oid, &ci->stages[2].oid);
new_ci->stages[1].mode = 0;
oidcpy(&new_ci->stages[1].oid, null_oid());
new_ci->filemask = 5;
if ((S_IFMT & b_mode) != (S_IFMT & o_mode)) {
new_ci->stages[0].mode = 0;
oidcpy(&new_ci->stages[0].oid, null_oid());
new_ci->filemask = 4;
}
/* Leave only a in ci, fixing stages. */
ci->merged.result.mode = ci->stages[1].mode;
oidcpy(&ci->merged.result.oid, &ci->stages[1].oid);
ci->stages[2].mode = 0;
oidcpy(&ci->stages[2].oid, null_oid());
ci->filemask = 3;
if ((S_IFMT & a_mode) != (S_IFMT & o_mode)) {
ci->stages[0].mode = 0;
oidcpy(&ci->stages[0].oid, null_oid());
ci->filemask = 2;
}
/* Insert entries into opt->priv_paths */
assert(rename_a || rename_b);
if (rename_a) {
a_path = unique_path(&opt->priv->paths,
path, opt->branch1);
strmap_put(&opt->priv->paths, a_path, ci);
}
if (rename_b)
b_path = unique_path(&opt->priv->paths,
path, opt->branch2);
else
b_path = path;
strmap_put(&opt->priv->paths, b_path, new_ci);
if (rename_a && rename_b) {
strmap_remove(&opt->priv->paths, path, 0);
/*
* We removed path from opt->priv->paths. path
* will also eventually need to be freed, but
* it may still be used by e.g. ci->pathnames.
* So, store it in another string-list for now.
*/
string_list_append(&opt->priv->paths_to_free,
path);
}
/*
* Do special handling for b_path since process_entry()
* won't be called on it specially.
*/
strmap_put(&opt->priv->conflicted, b_path, new_ci);
record_entry_for_tree(dir_metadata, b_path,
&new_ci->merged);
/*
* Remaining code for processing this entry should
* think in terms of processing a_path.
*/
if (a_path)
path = a_path;
}
} else if (ci->filemask >= 6) {
/* Need a two-way or three-way content merge */
struct version_info merged_file;
unsigned clean_merge;
struct version_info *o = &ci->stages[0];
struct version_info *a = &ci->stages[1];
struct version_info *b = &ci->stages[2];
clean_merge = handle_content_merge(opt, path, o, a, b,
ci->pathnames,
opt->priv->call_depth * 2,
&merged_file);
ci->merged.clean = clean_merge &&
!ci->df_conflict && !ci->path_conflict;
ci->merged.result.mode = merged_file.mode;
ci->merged.is_null = (merged_file.mode == 0);
oidcpy(&ci->merged.result.oid, &merged_file.oid);
if (clean_merge && ci->df_conflict) {
assert(df_file_index == 1 || df_file_index == 2);
ci->filemask = 1 << df_file_index;
ci->stages[df_file_index].mode = merged_file.mode;
oidcpy(&ci->stages[df_file_index].oid, &merged_file.oid);
}
if (!clean_merge) {
const char *reason = _("content");
if (ci->filemask == 6)
reason = _("add/add");
if (S_ISGITLINK(merged_file.mode))
reason = _("submodule");
path_msg(opt, path, 0,
_("CONFLICT (%s): Merge conflict in %s"),
reason, path);
}
} else if (ci->filemask == 3 || ci->filemask == 5) {
/* Modify/delete */
merge-ort: add modify/delete handling and delayed output processing The focus here is on adding a path_msg() which will queue up warning/conflict/notice messages about the merge for later processing, storing these in a pathname -> strbuf map. It might seem like a big change, but it really just is: * declaration of necessary map with some comments * initialization and recording of data * a bunch of code to iterate over the map at print/free time * at least one caller in order to avoid an error about having an unused function (which we provide in the form of implementing modify/delete conflict handling). At this stage, it is probably not clear why I am opting for delayed output processing. There are multiple reasons: 1. Merges are supposed to abort if they would overwrite dirty changes in the working tree. We cannot correctly determine whether changes would be overwritten until both rename detection has occurred and full processing of entries with the renames has finalized. Warning/conflict/notice messages come up at intermediate codepaths along the way, so unless we want spurious conflict/warning messages being printed when the merge will be aborted anyway, we need to save these messages and only print them when relevant. 2. There can be multiple messages for a single path, and we want all messages for a give path to appear together instead of having them grouped by conflict/warning type. This was a problem already with merge-recursive.c but became even more important due to the splitting apart of conflict types as discussed in the commit message for 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) 3. Some callers might want to avoid showing the output in certain cases, such as if the end result is a clean merge. Rebases have typically done this. 4. Some callers might not want the output to go to stdout or even stderr, but might want to do something else with it entirely. For example, a --remerge-diff option to `git show` or `git log -p` that remerges on the fly and diffs merge commits against the remerged version would benefit from stdout/stderr not being written to in the standard form. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-03 18:59:46 +03:00
const char *modify_branch, *delete_branch;
int side = (ci->filemask == 5) ? 2 : 1;
int index = opt->priv->call_depth ? 0 : side;
ci->merged.result.mode = ci->stages[index].mode;
oidcpy(&ci->merged.result.oid, &ci->stages[index].oid);
ci->merged.clean = 0;
modify_branch = (side == 1) ? opt->branch1 : opt->branch2;
delete_branch = (side == 1) ? opt->branch2 : opt->branch1;
if (opt->renormalize &&
blob_unchanged(opt, &ci->stages[0], &ci->stages[side],
path)) {
ci->merged.is_null = 1;
ci->merged.clean = 1;
assert(!ci->df_conflict && !ci->path_conflict);
} else if (ci->path_conflict &&
oideq(&ci->stages[0].oid, &ci->stages[side].oid)) {
merge-ort: add implementation of rename/delete conflicts Implement rename/delete conflicts, i.e. one side renames a file and the other deletes the file. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * the code relevant to RENAME_DELETE in process_renames() * the RENAME_DELETE case of process_entry() * handle_rename_delete() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_change_delete() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of five separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. To be fair, there is a _slight_ tweak to process_entry() here, because rename/delete cases will also trigger the modify/delete codepath. However, we only want a modify/delete message to be printed for a rename/delete conflict if there is a content change in the renamed file in addition to the rename. So process_renames() and process_entry() aren't quite fully orthogonal, but they are pretty close. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:03 +03:00
/*
* This came from a rename/delete; no action to take,
* but avoid printing "modify/delete" conflict notice
* since the contents were not modified.
*/
} else {
path_msg(opt, path, 0,
_("CONFLICT (modify/delete): %s deleted in %s "
"and modified in %s. Version %s of %s left "
"in tree."),
path, delete_branch, modify_branch,
modify_branch, path);
}
} else if (ci->filemask == 2 || ci->filemask == 4) {
/* Added on one side */
int side = (ci->filemask == 4) ? 2 : 1;
ci->merged.result.mode = ci->stages[side].mode;
oidcpy(&ci->merged.result.oid, &ci->stages[side].oid);
merge-ort: add implementation of both sides renaming differently Implement rename/rename(1to2) handling, i.e. both sides of history renaming a file and rename it differently. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * all the 1to2 code in process_renames() * the RENAME_ONE_FILE_TO_TWO case of process_entry() * handle_rename_rename_1to2() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_file_collision() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of five separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. To be fair, there is a _slight_ tweak to process_entry() here to make sure that the two different paths aren't marked as clean but are left in a conflicted state. So process_renames() and process_entry() aren't quite entirely orthogonal, but they are pretty close. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:02 +03:00
ci->merged.clean = !ci->df_conflict && !ci->path_conflict;
} else if (ci->filemask == 1) {
/* Deleted on both sides */
ci->merged.is_null = 1;
ci->merged.result.mode = 0;
oidcpy(&ci->merged.result.oid, null_oid());
assert(!ci->df_conflict);
merge-ort: add implementation of both sides renaming differently Implement rename/rename(1to2) handling, i.e. both sides of history renaming a file and rename it differently. This code replaces the following from merge-recurisve.c: * all the 1to2 code in process_renames() * the RENAME_ONE_FILE_TO_TWO case of process_entry() * handle_rename_rename_1to2() Also, there is some shared code from merge-recursive.c for multiple different rename cases which we will no longer need for this case (or other rename cases): * handle_file_collision() * setup_rename_conflict_info() The consolidation of five separate codepaths into one is made possible by a change in design: process_renames() tweaks the conflict_info entries within opt->priv->paths such that process_entry() can then handle all the non-rename conflict types (directory/file, modify/delete, etc.) orthogonally. This means we're much less likely to miss special implementation of some kind of combination of conflict types (see commits brought in by 66c62eaec6 ("Merge branch 'en/merge-tests'", 2020-11-18), especially commit ef52778708 ("merge tests: expect improved directory/file conflict handling in ort", 2020-10-26) for more details). That, together with letting worktree/index updating be handled orthogonally in the merge_switch_to_result() function, dramatically simplifies the code for various special rename cases. To be fair, there is a _slight_ tweak to process_entry() here to make sure that the two different paths aren't marked as clean but are left in a conflicted state. So process_renames() and process_entry() aren't quite entirely orthogonal, but they are pretty close. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-15 21:28:02 +03:00
ci->merged.clean = !ci->path_conflict;
}
/*
* If still conflicted, record it separately. This allows us to later
* iterate over just conflicted entries when updating the index instead
* of iterating over all entries.
*/
if (!ci->merged.clean)
strmap_put(&opt->priv->conflicted, path, ci);
/* Record metadata for ci->merged in dir_metadata */
record_entry_for_tree(dir_metadata, path, &ci->merged);
}
merge-ort: add prefetching for content merges Commit 7fbbcb21b1 ("diff: batch fetching of missing blobs", 2019-04-05) introduced batching of fetching missing blobs, so that the diff machinery would have one fetch subprocess grab N blobs instead of N processes each grabbing 1. However, the diff machinery is not the only thing in a merge that needs to work on blobs. The 3-way content merges need them as well. Rather than download all the blobs 1 at a time, prefetch all the blobs needed for regular content merges. This does not cover all possible paths in merge-ort that might need to download blobs. Others include: - The blob_unchanged() calls to avoid modify/delete conflicts (when blob renormalization results in an "unchanged" file) - Preliminary content merges needed for rename/add and rename/rename(2to1) style conflicts. (Both of these types of conflicts can result in nested conflict markers from the need to do two levels of content merging; the first happens before our new prefetch_for_content_merges() function.) The first of these wouldn't be an extreme amount of work to support, and even the second could be theoretically supported in batching, but all of these cases seem unusual to me, and this is a minor performance optimization anyway; in the worst case we only get some of the fetches batched and have a few additional one-off fetches. So for now, just handle the regular 3-way content merges in our prefetching. For the testcase from the previous commit, the number of downloaded objects remains at 63, but this drops the number of fetches needed from 32 down to 20, a sizeable reduction. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-22 11:04:41 +03:00
static void prefetch_for_content_merges(struct merge_options *opt,
struct string_list *plist)
{
struct string_list_item *e;
struct oid_array to_fetch = OID_ARRAY_INIT;
if (opt->repo != the_repository || !has_promisor_remote())
return;
for (e = &plist->items[plist->nr-1]; e >= plist->items; --e) {
/* char *path = e->string; */
struct conflict_info *ci = e->util;
int i;
/* Ignore clean entries */
if (ci->merged.clean)
continue;
/* Ignore entries that don't need a content merge */
if (ci->match_mask || ci->filemask < 6 ||
!S_ISREG(ci->stages[1].mode) ||
!S_ISREG(ci->stages[2].mode) ||
oideq(&ci->stages[1].oid, &ci->stages[2].oid))
continue;
/* Also don't need content merge if base matches either side */
if (ci->filemask == 7 &&
S_ISREG(ci->stages[0].mode) &&
(oideq(&ci->stages[0].oid, &ci->stages[1].oid) ||
oideq(&ci->stages[0].oid, &ci->stages[2].oid)))
continue;
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
unsigned side_mask = (1 << i);
struct version_info *vi = &ci->stages[i];
if ((ci->filemask & side_mask) &&
S_ISREG(vi->mode) &&
oid_object_info_extended(opt->repo, &vi->oid, NULL,
OBJECT_INFO_FOR_PREFETCH))
oid_array_append(&to_fetch, &vi->oid);
}
}
promisor_remote_get_direct(opt->repo, to_fetch.oid, to_fetch.nr);
oid_array_clear(&to_fetch);
}
static void process_entries(struct merge_options *opt,
struct object_id *result_oid)
{
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *e;
struct string_list plist = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
struct string_list_item *entry;
merge-ort: step 3 of tree writing -- handling subdirectories as we go Our order for processing of entries means that if we have a tree of files that looks like Makefile src/moduleA/foo.c src/moduleA/bar.c src/moduleB/baz.c src/moduleB/umm.c tokens.txt Then we will process paths in the order of the leftmost column below. I have added two additional columns that help explain the algorithm that follows; the 2nd column is there to remind us we have oid & mode info we are tracking for each of these paths (which differs between the paths which I'm not representing well here), and the third column annotates the parent directory of the entry: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB <version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA <version_info> src src <version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" When the parent directory changes, if it's a subdirectory of the previous parent directory (e.g. "" -> src/moduleB) then we can just keep appending. If the parent directory differs from the previous parent directory and is not a subdirectory, then we should process that directory. So, for example, when we get to this point: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB and note that the next entry (src/moduleB) has a different parent than the last one that isn't a subdirectory, we should write out a tree for it 100644 blob <HASH> umm.c 100644 blob <HASH> baz.c then pop all the entries under that directory while recording the new hash for that directory, leaving us with tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB <new version_info> src This process repeats until at the end we get to tokens.txt <version_info> "" src <new version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" and then we can write out the toplevel tree. Since we potentially have entries in our string_list corresponding to multiple different toplevel directories, e.g. a slightly different repository might have: whizbang.txt <version_info> "" tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleD <new version_info> src src/moduleC <new version_info> src src/moduleB <new version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA When src/moduleA is popped off, we need to know that the "last directory" reverts back to src, and how many entries in our string_list are associated with that parent directory. So I use an auxiliary offsets string_list which would have (parent_directory,offset) information of the form "" 0 src 2 src/moduleA 5 Whenever I write out a tree for a subdirectory, I set versions.nr to the final offset value and then decrement offsets.nr...and then add an entry to versions with a hash for the new directory. The idea is relatively simple, there's just a lot of accounting to implement this. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:22 +03:00
struct directory_versions dir_metadata = { STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP,
STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP,
NULL, 0 };
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "process_entries setup", opt->repo);
if (strmap_empty(&opt->priv->paths)) {
oidcpy(result_oid, opt->repo->hash_algo->empty_tree);
return;
}
/* Hack to pre-allocate plist to the desired size */
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "plist grow", opt->repo);
ALLOC_GROW(plist.items, strmap_get_size(&opt->priv->paths), plist.alloc);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "plist grow", opt->repo);
/* Put every entry from paths into plist, then sort */
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "plist copy", opt->repo);
strmap_for_each_entry(&opt->priv->paths, &iter, e) {
string_list_append(&plist, e->key)->util = e->value;
}
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "plist copy", opt->repo);
trace2_region_enter("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo);
merge-ort: replace string_list_df_name_compare with faster alternative Gathering accumulated times from trace2 output on the mega-renames testcase, I saw the following timings (where I'm only showing a few lines to highlight the portions of interest): 10.120 : label:incore_nonrecursive 4.462 : ..label:process_entries 3.143 : ....label:process_entries setup 2.988 : ......label:plist special sort 1.305 : ....label:processing 2.604 : ..label:collect_merge_info 2.018 : ..label:merge_start 1.018 : ..label:renames In the above output, note that the 4.462 seconds for process_entries was split as 3.143 seconds for "process_entries setup" and 1.305 seconds for "processing" (and a little time for other stuff removed from the highlight). Most of the "process_entries setup" time was spent on "plist special sort" which corresponds to the following code: trace2_region_enter("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); plist.cmp = string_list_df_name_compare; string_list_sort(&plist); trace2_region_leave("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo); In other words, in a merge strategy that would be invoked by passing "-sort" to either rebase or merge, sorting an array takes more time than anything else. Serves me right for naming my merge strategy this way. Rewrite the comparison function in a way that does not require finding out the lengths of the strings when comparing them. While at it, tweak the code for our specific case -- no need to handle a variety of modes, for example. The combination of these changes reduced the time spent in "plist special sort" by ~25% in the mega-renames case. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 5.622 s ± 0.059 s 5.235 s ± 0.042 s mega-renames: 10.127 s ± 0.073 s 9.419 s ± 0.107 s just-one-mega: 500.3 ms ± 3.8 ms 480.1 ms ± 3.9 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-08 19:11:39 +03:00
plist.cmp = sort_dirs_next_to_their_children;
string_list_sort(&plist);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "plist special sort", opt->repo);
trace2_region_leave("merge", "process_entries setup", opt->repo);
/*
* Iterate over the items in reverse order, so we can handle paths
* below a directory before needing to handle the directory itself.
merge-ort: step 3 of tree writing -- handling subdirectories as we go Our order for processing of entries means that if we have a tree of files that looks like Makefile src/moduleA/foo.c src/moduleA/bar.c src/moduleB/baz.c src/moduleB/umm.c tokens.txt Then we will process paths in the order of the leftmost column below. I have added two additional columns that help explain the algorithm that follows; the 2nd column is there to remind us we have oid & mode info we are tracking for each of these paths (which differs between the paths which I'm not representing well here), and the third column annotates the parent directory of the entry: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB <version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA <version_info> src src <version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" When the parent directory changes, if it's a subdirectory of the previous parent directory (e.g. "" -> src/moduleB) then we can just keep appending. If the parent directory differs from the previous parent directory and is not a subdirectory, then we should process that directory. So, for example, when we get to this point: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB and note that the next entry (src/moduleB) has a different parent than the last one that isn't a subdirectory, we should write out a tree for it 100644 blob <HASH> umm.c 100644 blob <HASH> baz.c then pop all the entries under that directory while recording the new hash for that directory, leaving us with tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB <new version_info> src This process repeats until at the end we get to tokens.txt <version_info> "" src <new version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" and then we can write out the toplevel tree. Since we potentially have entries in our string_list corresponding to multiple different toplevel directories, e.g. a slightly different repository might have: whizbang.txt <version_info> "" tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleD <new version_info> src src/moduleC <new version_info> src src/moduleB <new version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA When src/moduleA is popped off, we need to know that the "last directory" reverts back to src, and how many entries in our string_list are associated with that parent directory. So I use an auxiliary offsets string_list which would have (parent_directory,offset) information of the form "" 0 src 2 src/moduleA 5 Whenever I write out a tree for a subdirectory, I set versions.nr to the final offset value and then decrement offsets.nr...and then add an entry to versions with a hash for the new directory. The idea is relatively simple, there's just a lot of accounting to implement this. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:22 +03:00
*
* This allows us to write subtrees before we need to write trees,
* and it also enables sane handling of directory/file conflicts
* (because it allows us to know whether the directory is still in
* the way when it is time to process the file at the same path).
*/
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "processing", opt->repo);
merge-ort: add prefetching for content merges Commit 7fbbcb21b1 ("diff: batch fetching of missing blobs", 2019-04-05) introduced batching of fetching missing blobs, so that the diff machinery would have one fetch subprocess grab N blobs instead of N processes each grabbing 1. However, the diff machinery is not the only thing in a merge that needs to work on blobs. The 3-way content merges need them as well. Rather than download all the blobs 1 at a time, prefetch all the blobs needed for regular content merges. This does not cover all possible paths in merge-ort that might need to download blobs. Others include: - The blob_unchanged() calls to avoid modify/delete conflicts (when blob renormalization results in an "unchanged" file) - Preliminary content merges needed for rename/add and rename/rename(2to1) style conflicts. (Both of these types of conflicts can result in nested conflict markers from the need to do two levels of content merging; the first happens before our new prefetch_for_content_merges() function.) The first of these wouldn't be an extreme amount of work to support, and even the second could be theoretically supported in batching, but all of these cases seem unusual to me, and this is a minor performance optimization anyway; in the worst case we only get some of the fetches batched and have a few additional one-off fetches. So for now, just handle the regular 3-way content merges in our prefetching. For the testcase from the previous commit, the number of downloaded objects remains at 63, but this drops the number of fetches needed from 32 down to 20, a sizeable reduction. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-06-22 11:04:41 +03:00
prefetch_for_content_merges(opt, &plist);
for (entry = &plist.items[plist.nr-1]; entry >= plist.items; --entry) {
char *path = entry->string;
/*
* NOTE: mi may actually be a pointer to a conflict_info, but
* we have to check mi->clean first to see if it's safe to
* reassign to such a pointer type.
*/
struct merged_info *mi = entry->util;
merge-ort: step 3 of tree writing -- handling subdirectories as we go Our order for processing of entries means that if we have a tree of files that looks like Makefile src/moduleA/foo.c src/moduleA/bar.c src/moduleB/baz.c src/moduleB/umm.c tokens.txt Then we will process paths in the order of the leftmost column below. I have added two additional columns that help explain the algorithm that follows; the 2nd column is there to remind us we have oid & mode info we are tracking for each of these paths (which differs between the paths which I'm not representing well here), and the third column annotates the parent directory of the entry: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB <version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA <version_info> src src <version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" When the parent directory changes, if it's a subdirectory of the previous parent directory (e.g. "" -> src/moduleB) then we can just keep appending. If the parent directory differs from the previous parent directory and is not a subdirectory, then we should process that directory. So, for example, when we get to this point: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB and note that the next entry (src/moduleB) has a different parent than the last one that isn't a subdirectory, we should write out a tree for it 100644 blob <HASH> umm.c 100644 blob <HASH> baz.c then pop all the entries under that directory while recording the new hash for that directory, leaving us with tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB <new version_info> src This process repeats until at the end we get to tokens.txt <version_info> "" src <new version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" and then we can write out the toplevel tree. Since we potentially have entries in our string_list corresponding to multiple different toplevel directories, e.g. a slightly different repository might have: whizbang.txt <version_info> "" tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleD <new version_info> src src/moduleC <new version_info> src src/moduleB <new version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA When src/moduleA is popped off, we need to know that the "last directory" reverts back to src, and how many entries in our string_list are associated with that parent directory. So I use an auxiliary offsets string_list which would have (parent_directory,offset) information of the form "" 0 src 2 src/moduleA 5 Whenever I write out a tree for a subdirectory, I set versions.nr to the final offset value and then decrement offsets.nr...and then add an entry to versions with a hash for the new directory. The idea is relatively simple, there's just a lot of accounting to implement this. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:22 +03:00
write_completed_directory(opt, mi->directory_name,
&dir_metadata);
if (mi->clean)
record_entry_for_tree(&dir_metadata, path, mi);
else {
struct conflict_info *ci = (struct conflict_info *)mi;
process_entry(opt, path, ci, &dir_metadata);
}
}
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "processing", opt->repo);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "process_entries cleanup", opt->repo);
merge-ort: step 3 of tree writing -- handling subdirectories as we go Our order for processing of entries means that if we have a tree of files that looks like Makefile src/moduleA/foo.c src/moduleA/bar.c src/moduleB/baz.c src/moduleB/umm.c tokens.txt Then we will process paths in the order of the leftmost column below. I have added two additional columns that help explain the algorithm that follows; the 2nd column is there to remind us we have oid & mode info we are tracking for each of these paths (which differs between the paths which I'm not representing well here), and the third column annotates the parent directory of the entry: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB <version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA <version_info> src src <version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" When the parent directory changes, if it's a subdirectory of the previous parent directory (e.g. "" -> src/moduleB) then we can just keep appending. If the parent directory differs from the previous parent directory and is not a subdirectory, then we should process that directory. So, for example, when we get to this point: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB and note that the next entry (src/moduleB) has a different parent than the last one that isn't a subdirectory, we should write out a tree for it 100644 blob <HASH> umm.c 100644 blob <HASH> baz.c then pop all the entries under that directory while recording the new hash for that directory, leaving us with tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB <new version_info> src This process repeats until at the end we get to tokens.txt <version_info> "" src <new version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" and then we can write out the toplevel tree. Since we potentially have entries in our string_list corresponding to multiple different toplevel directories, e.g. a slightly different repository might have: whizbang.txt <version_info> "" tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleD <new version_info> src src/moduleC <new version_info> src src/moduleB <new version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA When src/moduleA is popped off, we need to know that the "last directory" reverts back to src, and how many entries in our string_list are associated with that parent directory. So I use an auxiliary offsets string_list which would have (parent_directory,offset) information of the form "" 0 src 2 src/moduleA 5 Whenever I write out a tree for a subdirectory, I set versions.nr to the final offset value and then decrement offsets.nr...and then add an entry to versions with a hash for the new directory. The idea is relatively simple, there's just a lot of accounting to implement this. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:22 +03:00
if (dir_metadata.offsets.nr != 1 ||
(uintptr_t)dir_metadata.offsets.items[0].util != 0) {
printf("dir_metadata.offsets.nr = %d (should be 1)\n",
dir_metadata.offsets.nr);
printf("dir_metadata.offsets.items[0].util = %u (should be 0)\n",
(unsigned)(uintptr_t)dir_metadata.offsets.items[0].util);
fflush(stdout);
BUG("dir_metadata accounting completely off; shouldn't happen");
}
write_tree(result_oid, &dir_metadata.versions, 0,
opt->repo->hash_algo->rawsz);
string_list_clear(&plist, 0);
string_list_clear(&dir_metadata.versions, 0);
merge-ort: step 3 of tree writing -- handling subdirectories as we go Our order for processing of entries means that if we have a tree of files that looks like Makefile src/moduleA/foo.c src/moduleA/bar.c src/moduleB/baz.c src/moduleB/umm.c tokens.txt Then we will process paths in the order of the leftmost column below. I have added two additional columns that help explain the algorithm that follows; the 2nd column is there to remind us we have oid & mode info we are tracking for each of these paths (which differs between the paths which I'm not representing well here), and the third column annotates the parent directory of the entry: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB <version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA <version_info> src src <version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" When the parent directory changes, if it's a subdirectory of the previous parent directory (e.g. "" -> src/moduleB) then we can just keep appending. If the parent directory differs from the previous parent directory and is not a subdirectory, then we should process that directory. So, for example, when we get to this point: tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB/umm.c <version_info> src/moduleB src/moduleB/baz.c <version_info> src/moduleB and note that the next entry (src/moduleB) has a different parent than the last one that isn't a subdirectory, we should write out a tree for it 100644 blob <HASH> umm.c 100644 blob <HASH> baz.c then pop all the entries under that directory while recording the new hash for that directory, leaving us with tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleB <new version_info> src This process repeats until at the end we get to tokens.txt <version_info> "" src <new version_info> "" Makefile <version_info> "" and then we can write out the toplevel tree. Since we potentially have entries in our string_list corresponding to multiple different toplevel directories, e.g. a slightly different repository might have: whizbang.txt <version_info> "" tokens.txt <version_info> "" src/moduleD <new version_info> src src/moduleC <new version_info> src src/moduleB <new version_info> src src/moduleA/foo.c <version_info> src/moduleA src/moduleA/bar.c <version_info> src/moduleA When src/moduleA is popped off, we need to know that the "last directory" reverts back to src, and how many entries in our string_list are associated with that parent directory. So I use an auxiliary offsets string_list which would have (parent_directory,offset) information of the form "" 0 src 2 src/moduleA 5 Whenever I write out a tree for a subdirectory, I set versions.nr to the final offset value and then decrement offsets.nr...and then add an entry to versions with a hash for the new directory. The idea is relatively simple, there's just a lot of accounting to implement this. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:22 +03:00
string_list_clear(&dir_metadata.offsets, 0);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "process_entries cleanup", opt->repo);
}
/*** Function Grouping: functions related to merge_switch_to_result() ***/
static int checkout(struct merge_options *opt,
struct tree *prev,
struct tree *next)
{
/* Switch the index/working copy from old to new */
int ret;
struct tree_desc trees[2];
struct unpack_trees_options unpack_opts;
memset(&unpack_opts, 0, sizeof(unpack_opts));
unpack_opts.head_idx = -1;
unpack_opts.src_index = opt->repo->index;
unpack_opts.dst_index = opt->repo->index;
setup_unpack_trees_porcelain(&unpack_opts, "merge");
/*
* NOTE: if this were just "git checkout" code, we would probably
* read or refresh the cache and check for a conflicted index, but
* builtin/merge.c or sequencer.c really needs to read the index
* and check for conflicted entries before starting merging for a
* good user experience (no sense waiting for merges/rebases before
* erroring out), so there's no reason to duplicate that work here.
*/
/* 2-way merge to the new branch */
unpack_opts.update = 1;
unpack_opts.merge = 1;
unpack_opts.quiet = 0; /* FIXME: sequencer might want quiet? */
unpack_opts.verbose_update = (opt->verbosity > 2);
unpack_opts.fn = twoway_merge;
if (1/* FIXME: opts->overwrite_ignore*/) {
CALLOC_ARRAY(unpack_opts.dir, 1);
unpack_opts.dir->flags |= DIR_SHOW_IGNORED;
setup_standard_excludes(unpack_opts.dir);
}
parse_tree(prev);
init_tree_desc(&trees[0], prev->buffer, prev->size);
parse_tree(next);
init_tree_desc(&trees[1], next->buffer, next->size);
ret = unpack_trees(2, trees, &unpack_opts);
clear_unpack_trees_porcelain(&unpack_opts);
dir_clear(unpack_opts.dir);
FREE_AND_NULL(unpack_opts.dir);
return ret;
}
static int record_conflicted_index_entries(struct merge_options *opt)
{
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *e;
struct index_state *index = opt->repo->index;
struct checkout state = CHECKOUT_INIT;
int errs = 0;
int original_cache_nr;
if (strmap_empty(&opt->priv->conflicted))
return 0;
/* If any entries have skip_worktree set, we'll have to check 'em out */
state.force = 1;
state.quiet = 1;
state.refresh_cache = 1;
state.istate = index;
original_cache_nr = index->cache_nr;
/* Append every entry from conflicted into index, then sort */
strmap_for_each_entry(&opt->priv->conflicted, &iter, e) {
const char *path = e->key;
struct conflict_info *ci = e->value;
int pos;
struct cache_entry *ce;
int i;
VERIFY_CI(ci);
/*
* The index will already have a stage=0 entry for this path,
* because we created an as-merged-as-possible version of the
* file and checkout() moved the working copy and index over
* to that version.
*
* However, previous iterations through this loop will have
* added unstaged entries to the end of the cache which
* ignore the standard alphabetical ordering of cache
* entries and break invariants needed for index_name_pos()
* to work. However, we know the entry we want is before
* those appended cache entries, so do a temporary swap on
* cache_nr to only look through entries of interest.
*/
SWAP(index->cache_nr, original_cache_nr);
pos = index_name_pos(index, path, strlen(path));
SWAP(index->cache_nr, original_cache_nr);
if (pos < 0) {
if (ci->filemask != 1)
BUG("Conflicted %s but nothing in basic working tree or index; this shouldn't happen", path);
cache_tree_invalidate_path(index, path);
} else {
ce = index->cache[pos];
/*
* Clean paths with CE_SKIP_WORKTREE set will not be
* written to the working tree by the unpack_trees()
* call in checkout(). Our conflicted entries would
* have appeared clean to that code since we ignored
* the higher order stages. Thus, we need override
* the CE_SKIP_WORKTREE bit and manually write those
* files to the working disk here.
*/
if (ce_skip_worktree(ce)) {
struct stat st;
if (!lstat(path, &st)) {
char *new_name = unique_path(&opt->priv->paths,
path,
"cruft");
path_msg(opt, path, 1,
_("Note: %s not up to date and in way of checking out conflicted version; old copy renamed to %s"),
path, new_name);
errs |= rename(path, new_name);
free(new_name);
}
errs |= checkout_entry(ce, &state, NULL, NULL);
}
/*
* Mark this cache entry for removal and instead add
* new stage>0 entries corresponding to the
* conflicts. If there are many conflicted entries, we
* want to avoid memmove'ing O(NM) entries by
* inserting the new entries one at a time. So,
* instead, we just add the new cache entries to the
* end (ignoring normal index requirements on sort
* order) and sort the index once we're all done.
*/
ce->ce_flags |= CE_REMOVE;
}
for (i = MERGE_BASE; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; i++) {
struct version_info *vi;
if (!(ci->filemask & (1ul << i)))
continue;
vi = &ci->stages[i];
ce = make_cache_entry(index, vi->mode, &vi->oid,
path, i+1, 0);
add_index_entry(index, ce, ADD_CACHE_JUST_APPEND);
}
}
/*
* Remove the unused cache entries (and invalidate the relevant
* cache-trees), then sort the index entries to get the conflicted
* entries we added to the end into their right locations.
*/
remove_marked_cache_entries(index, 1);
/*
* No need for STABLE_QSORT -- cmp_cache_name_compare sorts primarily
* on filename and secondarily on stage, and (name, stage #) are a
* unique tuple.
*/
QSORT(index->cache, index->cache_nr, cmp_cache_name_compare);
return errs;
}
void merge_switch_to_result(struct merge_options *opt,
struct tree *head,
struct merge_result *result,
int update_worktree_and_index,
int display_update_msgs)
{
assert(opt->priv == NULL);
if (result->clean >= 0 && update_worktree_and_index) {
const char *filename;
FILE *fp;
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "checkout", opt->repo);
if (checkout(opt, head, result->tree)) {
/* failure to function */
result->clean = -1;
return;
}
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "checkout", opt->repo);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "record_conflicted", opt->repo);
opt->priv = result->priv;
if (record_conflicted_index_entries(opt)) {
/* failure to function */
opt->priv = NULL;
result->clean = -1;
return;
}
opt->priv = NULL;
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "record_conflicted", opt->repo);
trace2_region_enter("merge", "write_auto_merge", opt->repo);
filename = git_path_auto_merge(opt->repo);
fp = xfopen(filename, "w");
fprintf(fp, "%s\n", oid_to_hex(&result->tree->object.oid));
fclose(fp);
trace2_region_leave("merge", "write_auto_merge", opt->repo);
}
if (display_update_msgs) {
merge-ort: add modify/delete handling and delayed output processing The focus here is on adding a path_msg() which will queue up warning/conflict/notice messages about the merge for later processing, storing these in a pathname -> strbuf map. It might seem like a big change, but it really just is: * declaration of necessary map with some comments * initialization and recording of data * a bunch of code to iterate over the map at print/free time * at least one caller in order to avoid an error about having an unused function (which we provide in the form of implementing modify/delete conflict handling). At this stage, it is probably not clear why I am opting for delayed output processing. There are multiple reasons: 1. Merges are supposed to abort if they would overwrite dirty changes in the working tree. We cannot correctly determine whether changes would be overwritten until both rename detection has occurred and full processing of entries with the renames has finalized. Warning/conflict/notice messages come up at intermediate codepaths along the way, so unless we want spurious conflict/warning messages being printed when the merge will be aborted anyway, we need to save these messages and only print them when relevant. 2. There can be multiple messages for a single path, and we want all messages for a give path to appear together instead of having them grouped by conflict/warning type. This was a problem already with merge-recursive.c but became even more important due to the splitting apart of conflict types as discussed in the commit message for 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) 3. Some callers might want to avoid showing the output in certain cases, such as if the end result is a clean merge. Rebases have typically done this. 4. Some callers might not want the output to go to stdout or even stderr, but might want to do something else with it entirely. For example, a --remerge-diff option to `git show` or `git log -p` that remerges on the fly and diffs merge commits against the remerged version would benefit from stdout/stderr not being written to in the standard form. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-03 18:59:46 +03:00
struct merge_options_internal *opti = result->priv;
struct hashmap_iter iter;
struct strmap_entry *e;
struct string_list olist = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
int i;
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "display messages", opt->repo);
merge-ort: add modify/delete handling and delayed output processing The focus here is on adding a path_msg() which will queue up warning/conflict/notice messages about the merge for later processing, storing these in a pathname -> strbuf map. It might seem like a big change, but it really just is: * declaration of necessary map with some comments * initialization and recording of data * a bunch of code to iterate over the map at print/free time * at least one caller in order to avoid an error about having an unused function (which we provide in the form of implementing modify/delete conflict handling). At this stage, it is probably not clear why I am opting for delayed output processing. There are multiple reasons: 1. Merges are supposed to abort if they would overwrite dirty changes in the working tree. We cannot correctly determine whether changes would be overwritten until both rename detection has occurred and full processing of entries with the renames has finalized. Warning/conflict/notice messages come up at intermediate codepaths along the way, so unless we want spurious conflict/warning messages being printed when the merge will be aborted anyway, we need to save these messages and only print them when relevant. 2. There can be multiple messages for a single path, and we want all messages for a give path to appear together instead of having them grouped by conflict/warning type. This was a problem already with merge-recursive.c but became even more important due to the splitting apart of conflict types as discussed in the commit message for 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) 3. Some callers might want to avoid showing the output in certain cases, such as if the end result is a clean merge. Rebases have typically done this. 4. Some callers might not want the output to go to stdout or even stderr, but might want to do something else with it entirely. For example, a --remerge-diff option to `git show` or `git log -p` that remerges on the fly and diffs merge commits against the remerged version would benefit from stdout/stderr not being written to in the standard form. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-03 18:59:46 +03:00
/* Hack to pre-allocate olist to the desired size */
ALLOC_GROW(olist.items, strmap_get_size(&opti->output),
olist.alloc);
/* Put every entry from output into olist, then sort */
strmap_for_each_entry(&opti->output, &iter, e) {
string_list_append(&olist, e->key)->util = e->value;
}
string_list_sort(&olist);
/* Iterate over the items, printing them */
for (i = 0; i < olist.nr; ++i) {
struct strbuf *sb = olist.items[i].util;
printf("%s", sb->buf);
}
string_list_clear(&olist, 0);
/* Also include needed rename limit adjustment now */
diff_warn_rename_limit("merge.renamelimit",
opti->renames.needed_limit, 0);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "display messages", opt->repo);
}
merge_finalize(opt, result);
}
void merge_finalize(struct merge_options *opt,
struct merge_result *result)
{
struct merge_options_internal *opti = result->priv;
if (opt->renormalize)
git_attr_set_direction(GIT_ATTR_CHECKIN);
assert(opt->priv == NULL);
clear_or_reinit_internal_opts(opti, 0);
FREE_AND_NULL(opti);
}
/*** Function Grouping: helper functions for merge_incore_*() ***/
static struct tree *shift_tree_object(struct repository *repo,
struct tree *one, struct tree *two,
const char *subtree_shift)
{
struct object_id shifted;
if (!*subtree_shift) {
shift_tree(repo, &one->object.oid, &two->object.oid, &shifted, 0);
} else {
shift_tree_by(repo, &one->object.oid, &two->object.oid, &shifted,
subtree_shift);
}
if (oideq(&two->object.oid, &shifted))
return two;
return lookup_tree(repo, &shifted);
}
static inline void set_commit_tree(struct commit *c, struct tree *t)
{
c->maybe_tree = t;
}
static struct commit *make_virtual_commit(struct repository *repo,
struct tree *tree,
const char *comment)
{
struct commit *commit = alloc_commit_node(repo);
set_merge_remote_desc(commit, comment, (struct object *)commit);
set_commit_tree(commit, tree);
commit->object.parsed = 1;
return commit;
}
static void merge_start(struct merge_options *opt, struct merge_result *result)
{
struct rename_info *renames;
int i;
merge-ort: port merge_start() from merge-recursive merge_start() basically does a bunch of sanity checks, then allocates and initializes opt->priv -- a struct merge_options_internal. Most of the sanity checks are usable as-is. The allocation/intialization is a bit different since merge-ort has a very different merge_options_internal than merge-recursive, but the idea is the same. The weirdest part here is that merge-ort and merge-recursive use the same struct merge_options, even though merge_options has a number of fields that are oddly specific to merge-recursive's internal implementation and don't even make sense with merge-ort's high-level design (e.g. buffer_output, which merge-ort has to always do). I reused the same data structure because: * most the fields made sense to both merge algorithms * making a new struct would have required making new enums or somehow externalizing them, and that was getting messy. * it simplifies converting the existing callers by not having to have different code paths for merge_options setup. I also marked detect_renames as ignored. We can revisit that later, but in short: merge-recursive allowed turning off rename detection because it was sometimes glacially slow. When you speed something up by a few orders of magnitude, it's worth revisiting whether that justification is still relevant. Besides, if folks find it's still too slow, perhaps they have a better scaling case than I could find and maybe it turns up some more optimizations we can add. If it still is needed as an option, it is easy to add later. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:10 +03:00
/* Sanity checks on opt */
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "sanity checks", opt->repo);
merge-ort: port merge_start() from merge-recursive merge_start() basically does a bunch of sanity checks, then allocates and initializes opt->priv -- a struct merge_options_internal. Most of the sanity checks are usable as-is. The allocation/intialization is a bit different since merge-ort has a very different merge_options_internal than merge-recursive, but the idea is the same. The weirdest part here is that merge-ort and merge-recursive use the same struct merge_options, even though merge_options has a number of fields that are oddly specific to merge-recursive's internal implementation and don't even make sense with merge-ort's high-level design (e.g. buffer_output, which merge-ort has to always do). I reused the same data structure because: * most the fields made sense to both merge algorithms * making a new struct would have required making new enums or somehow externalizing them, and that was getting messy. * it simplifies converting the existing callers by not having to have different code paths for merge_options setup. I also marked detect_renames as ignored. We can revisit that later, but in short: merge-recursive allowed turning off rename detection because it was sometimes glacially slow. When you speed something up by a few orders of magnitude, it's worth revisiting whether that justification is still relevant. Besides, if folks find it's still too slow, perhaps they have a better scaling case than I could find and maybe it turns up some more optimizations we can add. If it still is needed as an option, it is easy to add later. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:10 +03:00
assert(opt->repo);
assert(opt->branch1 && opt->branch2);
assert(opt->detect_directory_renames >= MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_NONE &&
opt->detect_directory_renames <= MERGE_DIRECTORY_RENAMES_TRUE);
assert(opt->rename_limit >= -1);
assert(opt->rename_score >= 0 && opt->rename_score <= MAX_SCORE);
assert(opt->show_rename_progress >= 0 && opt->show_rename_progress <= 1);
assert(opt->xdl_opts >= 0);
assert(opt->recursive_variant >= MERGE_VARIANT_NORMAL &&
opt->recursive_variant <= MERGE_VARIANT_THEIRS);
/*
* detect_renames, verbosity, buffer_output, and obuf are ignored
* fields that were used by "recursive" rather than "ort" -- but
* sanity check them anyway.
*/
assert(opt->detect_renames >= -1 &&
opt->detect_renames <= DIFF_DETECT_COPY);
assert(opt->verbosity >= 0 && opt->verbosity <= 5);
assert(opt->buffer_output <= 2);
assert(opt->obuf.len == 0);
assert(opt->priv == NULL);
if (result->_properly_initialized != 0 &&
result->_properly_initialized != RESULT_INITIALIZED)
BUG("struct merge_result passed to merge_incore_*recursive() must be zeroed or filled with values from a previous run");
assert(!!result->priv == !!result->_properly_initialized);
if (result->priv) {
opt->priv = result->priv;
result->priv = NULL;
/*
* opt->priv non-NULL means we had results from a previous
* run; do a few sanity checks that user didn't mess with
* it in an obvious fashion.
*/
assert(opt->priv->call_depth == 0);
assert(!opt->priv->toplevel_dir ||
0 == strlen(opt->priv->toplevel_dir));
}
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "sanity checks", opt->repo);
merge-ort: port merge_start() from merge-recursive merge_start() basically does a bunch of sanity checks, then allocates and initializes opt->priv -- a struct merge_options_internal. Most of the sanity checks are usable as-is. The allocation/intialization is a bit different since merge-ort has a very different merge_options_internal than merge-recursive, but the idea is the same. The weirdest part here is that merge-ort and merge-recursive use the same struct merge_options, even though merge_options has a number of fields that are oddly specific to merge-recursive's internal implementation and don't even make sense with merge-ort's high-level design (e.g. buffer_output, which merge-ort has to always do). I reused the same data structure because: * most the fields made sense to both merge algorithms * making a new struct would have required making new enums or somehow externalizing them, and that was getting messy. * it simplifies converting the existing callers by not having to have different code paths for merge_options setup. I also marked detect_renames as ignored. We can revisit that later, but in short: merge-recursive allowed turning off rename detection because it was sometimes glacially slow. When you speed something up by a few orders of magnitude, it's worth revisiting whether that justification is still relevant. Besides, if folks find it's still too slow, perhaps they have a better scaling case than I could find and maybe it turns up some more optimizations we can add. If it still is needed as an option, it is easy to add later. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:10 +03:00
merge-ort: use histogram diff In my cursory investigation, histogram diffs are about 2% slower than Myers diffs. Others have probably done more detailed benchmarks. But, in short, histogram diffs have been around for years and in a number of cases provide obviously better looking diffs where Myers diffs are unintelligible but the performance hit has kept them from becoming the default. However, there are real merge bugs we know about that have triggered on git.git and linux.git, which I don't have a clue how to address without the additional information that I believe is provided by histogram diffs. See the following: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190816184051.GB13894@sigill.intra.peff.net/ https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BHvJHpSJT7sdFwfNcPn_sOXwJi3=o14qjZS3M8Rzcxe2A@mail.gmail.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGtez4qjbtFT1hQoREfcJPmk9MzjhY5eEq1QhXT23tFOw@mail.gmail.com/ I don't like mismerges. I really don't like silent mismerges. While I am sometimes willing to make performance and correctness tradeoff, I'm much more interested in correctness in general. I want to fix the above bugs. I have not yet started doing so, but I believe histogram diff at least gives me an angle. Unfortunately, I can't rely on using the information from histogram diff unless it's in use. And it hasn't been used because of a few percentage performance hit. In testcases I have looked at, merge-ort is _much_ faster than merge-recursive for non-trivial merges/rebases/cherry-picks. As such, this is a golden opportunity to switch out the underlying diff algorithm (at least the one used by the merge machinery; git-diff and git-log are separate questions); doing so will allow me to get additional data and improved diffs, and I believe it will help me fix the above bugs at some point in the future. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:11 +03:00
/* Default to histogram diff. Actually, just hardcode it...for now. */
opt->xdl_opts = DIFF_WITH_ALG(opt, HISTOGRAM_DIFF);
/* Handle attr direction stuff for renormalization */
if (opt->renormalize)
git_attr_set_direction(GIT_ATTR_CHECKOUT);
merge-ort: port merge_start() from merge-recursive merge_start() basically does a bunch of sanity checks, then allocates and initializes opt->priv -- a struct merge_options_internal. Most of the sanity checks are usable as-is. The allocation/intialization is a bit different since merge-ort has a very different merge_options_internal than merge-recursive, but the idea is the same. The weirdest part here is that merge-ort and merge-recursive use the same struct merge_options, even though merge_options has a number of fields that are oddly specific to merge-recursive's internal implementation and don't even make sense with merge-ort's high-level design (e.g. buffer_output, which merge-ort has to always do). I reused the same data structure because: * most the fields made sense to both merge algorithms * making a new struct would have required making new enums or somehow externalizing them, and that was getting messy. * it simplifies converting the existing callers by not having to have different code paths for merge_options setup. I also marked detect_renames as ignored. We can revisit that later, but in short: merge-recursive allowed turning off rename detection because it was sometimes glacially slow. When you speed something up by a few orders of magnitude, it's worth revisiting whether that justification is still relevant. Besides, if folks find it's still too slow, perhaps they have a better scaling case than I could find and maybe it turns up some more optimizations we can add. If it still is needed as an option, it is easy to add later. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:10 +03:00
/* Initialization of opt->priv, our internal merge data */
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "allocate/init", opt->repo);
if (opt->priv) {
clear_or_reinit_internal_opts(opt->priv, 1);
trace2_region_leave("merge", "allocate/init", opt->repo);
return;
}
merge-ort: port merge_start() from merge-recursive merge_start() basically does a bunch of sanity checks, then allocates and initializes opt->priv -- a struct merge_options_internal. Most of the sanity checks are usable as-is. The allocation/intialization is a bit different since merge-ort has a very different merge_options_internal than merge-recursive, but the idea is the same. The weirdest part here is that merge-ort and merge-recursive use the same struct merge_options, even though merge_options has a number of fields that are oddly specific to merge-recursive's internal implementation and don't even make sense with merge-ort's high-level design (e.g. buffer_output, which merge-ort has to always do). I reused the same data structure because: * most the fields made sense to both merge algorithms * making a new struct would have required making new enums or somehow externalizing them, and that was getting messy. * it simplifies converting the existing callers by not having to have different code paths for merge_options setup. I also marked detect_renames as ignored. We can revisit that later, but in short: merge-recursive allowed turning off rename detection because it was sometimes glacially slow. When you speed something up by a few orders of magnitude, it's worth revisiting whether that justification is still relevant. Besides, if folks find it's still too slow, perhaps they have a better scaling case than I could find and maybe it turns up some more optimizations we can add. If it still is needed as an option, it is easy to add later. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:10 +03:00
opt->priv = xcalloc(1, sizeof(*opt->priv));
/* Initialization of various renames fields */
renames = &opt->priv->renames;
for (i = MERGE_SIDE1; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; i++) {
strintmap_init_with_options(&renames->dirs_removed[i],
NOT_RELEVANT, NULL, 0);
strmap_init_with_options(&renames->dir_rename_count[i],
NULL, 1);
strmap_init_with_options(&renames->dir_renames[i],
NULL, 0);
/*
* relevant_sources uses -1 for the default, because we need
* to be able to distinguish not-in-strintmap from valid
* relevant_source values from enum file_rename_relevance.
* In particular, possibly_cache_new_pair() expects a negative
* value for not-found entries.
*/
strintmap_init_with_options(&renames->relevant_sources[i],
-1 /* explicitly invalid */,
NULL, 0);
strmap_init_with_options(&renames->cached_pairs[i],
NULL, 1);
strset_init_with_options(&renames->cached_irrelevant[i],
NULL, 1);
strset_init_with_options(&renames->cached_target_names[i],
NULL, 0);
}
merge-ort: add data structures for allowable trivial directory resolves As noted a few commits ago, we can resolve individual files early if all three sides of the merge have a file at the path and two of the three sides match. We would really like to do the same thing with directories, because being able to do a trivial directory resolve means we don't have to recurse into the directory, potentially saving us a huge amount of time in both collect_merge_info() and process_entries(). Unfortunately, resolving directories early would mean missing any renames whose source or destination is underneath that directory. If we somehow knew there weren't any renames under the directory in question, then we could resolve it early. Sadly, it is impossible to determine whether there are renames under the directory in question without recursing into it, and this has traditionally kept us from ever implementing such an optimization. In commit f89b4f2bee ("merge-ort: skip rename detection entirely if possible", 2021-03-11), we added an additional reason that rename detection could be skipped entirely -- namely, if no *relevant* sources were present. Without completing collect_merge_info_callback(), we do not yet know if there are no relevant sources. However, we do know that if the current directory on one side matches the merge base, then every source file within that directory will not be RELEVANT_CONTENT, and a few simple checks can often let us rule out RELEVANT_LOCATION as well. This suggests we can just defer recursing into such directories until the end of collect_merge_info. Since the deferred directories are known to not add any relevant sources due to the above properties, then if there are no relevant sources after we've traversed all paths other than the deferred ones, then we know there are not any relevant sources. Under those conditions, rename detection is unnecessary, and that means we can resolve the deferred directories without recursing into them. Note that the logic for skipping rename detection was also modified further in commit 76e253793c ("merge-ort, diffcore-rename: employ cached renames when possible", 2021-01-30); in particular rename detection can be skipped if we already have cached renames for each relevant source. We can take advantage of this information as well with our deferral of recursing into directories where one side matches the merge base. Add some data structures that we will use to do these deferrals, with some lengthy comments explaining their purpose. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:33 +03:00
for (i = MERGE_SIDE1; i <= MERGE_SIDE2; i++) {
strintmap_init_with_options(&renames->deferred[i].possible_trivial_merges,
0, NULL, 0);
strset_init_with_options(&renames->deferred[i].target_dirs,
NULL, 1);
renames->deferred[i].trivial_merges_okay = 1; /* 1 == maybe */
}
merge-ort: port merge_start() from merge-recursive merge_start() basically does a bunch of sanity checks, then allocates and initializes opt->priv -- a struct merge_options_internal. Most of the sanity checks are usable as-is. The allocation/intialization is a bit different since merge-ort has a very different merge_options_internal than merge-recursive, but the idea is the same. The weirdest part here is that merge-ort and merge-recursive use the same struct merge_options, even though merge_options has a number of fields that are oddly specific to merge-recursive's internal implementation and don't even make sense with merge-ort's high-level design (e.g. buffer_output, which merge-ort has to always do). I reused the same data structure because: * most the fields made sense to both merge algorithms * making a new struct would have required making new enums or somehow externalizing them, and that was getting messy. * it simplifies converting the existing callers by not having to have different code paths for merge_options setup. I also marked detect_renames as ignored. We can revisit that later, but in short: merge-recursive allowed turning off rename detection because it was sometimes glacially slow. When you speed something up by a few orders of magnitude, it's worth revisiting whether that justification is still relevant. Besides, if folks find it's still too slow, perhaps they have a better scaling case than I could find and maybe it turns up some more optimizations we can add. If it still is needed as an option, it is easy to add later. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:10 +03:00
/*
* Although we initialize opt->priv->paths with strdup_strings=0,
* that's just to avoid making yet another copy of an allocated
* string. Putting the entry into paths means we are taking
* ownership, so we will later free it. paths_to_free is similar.
merge-ort: port merge_start() from merge-recursive merge_start() basically does a bunch of sanity checks, then allocates and initializes opt->priv -- a struct merge_options_internal. Most of the sanity checks are usable as-is. The allocation/intialization is a bit different since merge-ort has a very different merge_options_internal than merge-recursive, but the idea is the same. The weirdest part here is that merge-ort and merge-recursive use the same struct merge_options, even though merge_options has a number of fields that are oddly specific to merge-recursive's internal implementation and don't even make sense with merge-ort's high-level design (e.g. buffer_output, which merge-ort has to always do). I reused the same data structure because: * most the fields made sense to both merge algorithms * making a new struct would have required making new enums or somehow externalizing them, and that was getting messy. * it simplifies converting the existing callers by not having to have different code paths for merge_options setup. I also marked detect_renames as ignored. We can revisit that later, but in short: merge-recursive allowed turning off rename detection because it was sometimes glacially slow. When you speed something up by a few orders of magnitude, it's worth revisiting whether that justification is still relevant. Besides, if folks find it's still too slow, perhaps they have a better scaling case than I could find and maybe it turns up some more optimizations we can add. If it still is needed as an option, it is easy to add later. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-13 11:04:10 +03:00
*
* In contrast, conflicted just has a subset of keys from paths, so
* we don't want to free those (it'd be a duplicate free).
*/
strmap_init_with_options(&opt->priv->paths, NULL, 0);
strmap_init_with_options(&opt->priv->conflicted, NULL, 0);
string_list_init_nodup(&opt->priv->paths_to_free);
merge-ort: add modify/delete handling and delayed output processing The focus here is on adding a path_msg() which will queue up warning/conflict/notice messages about the merge for later processing, storing these in a pathname -> strbuf map. It might seem like a big change, but it really just is: * declaration of necessary map with some comments * initialization and recording of data * a bunch of code to iterate over the map at print/free time * at least one caller in order to avoid an error about having an unused function (which we provide in the form of implementing modify/delete conflict handling). At this stage, it is probably not clear why I am opting for delayed output processing. There are multiple reasons: 1. Merges are supposed to abort if they would overwrite dirty changes in the working tree. We cannot correctly determine whether changes would be overwritten until both rename detection has occurred and full processing of entries with the renames has finalized. Warning/conflict/notice messages come up at intermediate codepaths along the way, so unless we want spurious conflict/warning messages being printed when the merge will be aborted anyway, we need to save these messages and only print them when relevant. 2. There can be multiple messages for a single path, and we want all messages for a give path to appear together instead of having them grouped by conflict/warning type. This was a problem already with merge-recursive.c but became even more important due to the splitting apart of conflict types as discussed in the commit message for 1f3c9ba707 ("t6425: be more flexible with rename/delete conflict messages", 2020-08-10) 3. Some callers might want to avoid showing the output in certain cases, such as if the end result is a clean merge. Rebases have typically done this. 4. Some callers might not want the output to go to stdout or even stderr, but might want to do something else with it entirely. For example, a --remerge-diff option to `git show` or `git log -p` that remerges on the fly and diffs merge commits against the remerged version would benefit from stdout/stderr not being written to in the standard form. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2020-12-03 18:59:46 +03:00
/*
* keys & strbufs in output will sometimes need to outlive "paths",
* so it will have a copy of relevant keys. It's probably a small
* subset of the overall paths that have special output.
*/
strmap_init(&opt->priv->output);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "allocate/init", opt->repo);
}
merge-ort: add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused We need to know when renames detected in a previous merge operation can be reused in a later merge operation. Consider the following setup (from the git-rebase manpage): A---B---C topic / D---E---F---G master After rebasing, this will appear as: A'--B'--C' topic / D---E---F---G master Further, let's say that 'oldfile' was renamed to 'newfile' between E and G. The rebase or cherry-pick of A onto G will involve a three-way merge between E (as the merge base) and G and A. After detecting the rename between E:oldfile and G:newfile, there will be a three-way content merge of the following: E:oldfile G:newfile A:oldfile and produce a new result: A':newfile Now, when we want to pick B onto A', we will need to do a three-way merge between A (as the merge-base) and A' and B. This will involve a three-way content merge of A:oldfile A':newfile B:oldfile but only if we can detect that A:oldfile is similar enough to A':newfile to be used together in a three-way content merge, i.e. only if we can detect that A:oldfile and A':newfile are a rename. But we already know that A:oldfile and A':newfile are similar enough to be used in a three-way content merge, because that is precisely where A':newfile came from in the previous merge. Note that A & A' both appear in both merges. That gives us the condition under which we can reuse renames. There are a couple important points about this optimization: - If the rebase or cherry-pick halts for user conflicts, these caches are NOT saved anywhere. Thus, resuming a halted rebase or cherry-pick will result in no reused renames for the next commit. This is intentional, as user resolution can change files significantly and in ways that violate the similarity assumptions here. - Technically, in a *very* narrow case this might give slightly different results for rename detection. Using the example above, if: * E:oldfile had 20 lines * G:newfile added 10 new lines at the beginning of the file * A:oldfile deleted all but the first three lines of the file then => A':newfile would have 13 lines, 3 of which matches those in A:oldfile. Consider the two cases: * Without this optimization: - the next step of the rebase operation (moving B to B') would not detect the rename betwen A:oldfile and A':newfile - we'd thus get a modify/delete conflict with the rebase operation halting for the user to resolve, and have both A':newfile and B:oldfile sitting in the working tree. * With this optimization: - the rename between A:oldfile and A':newfile would be detected via the cache of renames - a three-way merge between A:oldfile, A':newfile, and B:oldfile would commence and be written to A':newfile Now, is the difference in behavior a bug...or a bugfix? I can't tell. Given that A:oldfile and A':newfile are not very similar, when we three-way merge with B:oldfile it seems likely we'll hit a conflict for the user to resolve. And it shouldn't be too hard for users to see why we did that three-way merge; oldfile and newfile *were* renames somewhere in the sequence. So, most of these corner cases will still behave similarly -- namely, a conflict given to the user to resolve. Also, consider the interesting case when commit B is a clean revert of commit A. Without this optimization, a rebase could not both apply a weird patch like A and then immediately revert it; users would be forced to resolve merge conflicts. With this optimization, it would successfully apply the clean revert. So, there is certainly at least one case that behaves better. Even if it's considered a "difference in behavior", I think both behaviors are reasonable, and the time savings provided by this optimization justify using the slightly altered rename heuristics. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:36 +03:00
static void merge_check_renames_reusable(struct merge_options *opt,
struct merge_result *result,
struct tree *merge_base,
struct tree *side1,
struct tree *side2)
{
struct rename_info *renames;
struct tree **merge_trees;
struct merge_options_internal *opti = result->priv;
if (!opti)
return;
renames = &opti->renames;
merge_trees = renames->merge_trees;
/*
* Handle case where previous merge operation did not want cache to
* take effect, e.g. because rename/rename(1to1) makes it invalid.
*/
if (!merge_trees[0]) {
assert(!merge_trees[0] && !merge_trees[1] && !merge_trees[2]);
renames->cached_pairs_valid_side = 0; /* neither side valid */
return;
}
/*
* Handle other cases; note that merge_trees[0..2] will only
* be NULL if opti is, or if all three were manually set to
* NULL by e.g. rename/rename(1to1) handling.
*/
merge-ort: add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused We need to know when renames detected in a previous merge operation can be reused in a later merge operation. Consider the following setup (from the git-rebase manpage): A---B---C topic / D---E---F---G master After rebasing, this will appear as: A'--B'--C' topic / D---E---F---G master Further, let's say that 'oldfile' was renamed to 'newfile' between E and G. The rebase or cherry-pick of A onto G will involve a three-way merge between E (as the merge base) and G and A. After detecting the rename between E:oldfile and G:newfile, there will be a three-way content merge of the following: E:oldfile G:newfile A:oldfile and produce a new result: A':newfile Now, when we want to pick B onto A', we will need to do a three-way merge between A (as the merge-base) and A' and B. This will involve a three-way content merge of A:oldfile A':newfile B:oldfile but only if we can detect that A:oldfile is similar enough to A':newfile to be used together in a three-way content merge, i.e. only if we can detect that A:oldfile and A':newfile are a rename. But we already know that A:oldfile and A':newfile are similar enough to be used in a three-way content merge, because that is precisely where A':newfile came from in the previous merge. Note that A & A' both appear in both merges. That gives us the condition under which we can reuse renames. There are a couple important points about this optimization: - If the rebase or cherry-pick halts for user conflicts, these caches are NOT saved anywhere. Thus, resuming a halted rebase or cherry-pick will result in no reused renames for the next commit. This is intentional, as user resolution can change files significantly and in ways that violate the similarity assumptions here. - Technically, in a *very* narrow case this might give slightly different results for rename detection. Using the example above, if: * E:oldfile had 20 lines * G:newfile added 10 new lines at the beginning of the file * A:oldfile deleted all but the first three lines of the file then => A':newfile would have 13 lines, 3 of which matches those in A:oldfile. Consider the two cases: * Without this optimization: - the next step of the rebase operation (moving B to B') would not detect the rename betwen A:oldfile and A':newfile - we'd thus get a modify/delete conflict with the rebase operation halting for the user to resolve, and have both A':newfile and B:oldfile sitting in the working tree. * With this optimization: - the rename between A:oldfile and A':newfile would be detected via the cache of renames - a three-way merge between A:oldfile, A':newfile, and B:oldfile would commence and be written to A':newfile Now, is the difference in behavior a bug...or a bugfix? I can't tell. Given that A:oldfile and A':newfile are not very similar, when we three-way merge with B:oldfile it seems likely we'll hit a conflict for the user to resolve. And it shouldn't be too hard for users to see why we did that three-way merge; oldfile and newfile *were* renames somewhere in the sequence. So, most of these corner cases will still behave similarly -- namely, a conflict given to the user to resolve. Also, consider the interesting case when commit B is a clean revert of commit A. Without this optimization, a rebase could not both apply a weird patch like A and then immediately revert it; users would be forced to resolve merge conflicts. With this optimization, it would successfully apply the clean revert. So, there is certainly at least one case that behaves better. Even if it's considered a "difference in behavior", I think both behaviors are reasonable, and the time savings provided by this optimization justify using the slightly altered rename heuristics. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:36 +03:00
assert(merge_trees[0] && merge_trees[1] && merge_trees[2]);
/* Check if we meet a condition for re-using cached_pairs */
if (oideq(&merge_base->object.oid, &merge_trees[2]->object.oid) &&
oideq(&side1->object.oid, &result->tree->object.oid))
renames->cached_pairs_valid_side = MERGE_SIDE1;
else if (oideq(&merge_base->object.oid, &merge_trees[1]->object.oid) &&
oideq(&side2->object.oid, &result->tree->object.oid))
renames->cached_pairs_valid_side = MERGE_SIDE2;
else
renames->cached_pairs_valid_side = 0; /* neither side valid */
}
/*** Function Grouping: merge_incore_*() and their internal variants ***/
/*
* Originally from merge_trees_internal(); heavily adapted, though.
*/
static void merge_ort_nonrecursive_internal(struct merge_options *opt,
struct tree *merge_base,
struct tree *side1,
struct tree *side2,
struct merge_result *result)
{
struct object_id working_tree_oid;
if (opt->subtree_shift) {
side2 = shift_tree_object(opt->repo, side1, side2,
opt->subtree_shift);
merge_base = shift_tree_object(opt->repo, side1, merge_base,
opt->subtree_shift);
}
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
redo:
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "collect_merge_info", opt->repo);
if (collect_merge_info(opt, merge_base, side1, side2) != 0) {
/*
* TRANSLATORS: The %s arguments are: 1) tree hash of a merge
* base, and 2-3) the trees for the two trees we're merging.
*/
err(opt, _("collecting merge info failed for trees %s, %s, %s"),
oid_to_hex(&merge_base->object.oid),
oid_to_hex(&side1->object.oid),
oid_to_hex(&side2->object.oid));
result->clean = -1;
return;
}
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "collect_merge_info", opt->repo);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "renames", opt->repo);
result->clean = detect_and_process_renames(opt, merge_base,
side1, side2);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "renames", opt->repo);
merge-ort: restart merge with cached renames to reduce process entry cost The merge algorithm mostly consists of the following three functions: collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() Prior to the trivial directory resolution optimization of the last half dozen commits, process_entries() was consistently the slowest, followed by collect_merge_info(), then detect_and_process_renames(). When the trivial directory resolution applies, it often dramatically decreases the amount of time spent in the two slower functions. Looking at the performance results in the previous commit, the trivial directory resolution optimization helps amazingly well when there are no relevant renames. It also helps really well when reapplying a long series of linear commits (such as in a rebase or cherry-pick), since the relevant renames may well be cached from the first reapplied commit. But when there are any relevant renames that are not cached (represented by the just-one-mega testcase), then the optimization does not help at all. Often, I noticed that when the optimization does not apply, it is because there are a handful of relevant sources -- maybe even only one. It felt frustrating to need to recurse into potentially hundreds or even thousands of directories just for a single rename, but it was needed for correctness. However, staring at this list of functions and noticing that process_entries() is the most expensive and knowing I could avoid it if I had cached renames suggested a simple idea: change collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() into collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() <cache all the renames, and restart> collect_merge_info() detect_and_process_renames() process_entries() This may seem odd and look like more work. However, note that although we run collect_merge_info() twice, the second time we get to employ trivial directory resolves, which makes it much faster, so the increased time in collect_merge_info() is small. While we run detect_and_process_renames() again, all renames are cached so it's nearly a no-op (we don't call into diffcore_rename_extended() but we do have a little bit of data structure checking and fixing up). And the big payoff comes from the fact that process_entries(), will be much faster due to having far fewer entries to process. This restarting only makes sense if we can save recursing into enough directories to make it worth our while. Introduce a simple heuristic to guide this. Note that this heuristic uses a "wanted_factor" that I have virtually no actual real world data for, just some back-of-the-envelope quasi-scientific calculations that I included in some comments and then plucked a simple round number out of thin air. It could be that tweaking this number to make it either higher or lower improves the optimization. (There's slightly more here; when I first introduced this optimization, I used a factor of 10, because I was completely confident it was big enough to not cause slowdowns in special cases. I was certain it was higher than needed. Several months later, I added the rough calculations which make me think the optimal number is close to 2; but instead of pushing to the limit, I just bumped it to 3 to reduce the risk that there are special cases where this optimization can result in slowing down the code a little. If the ratio of path counts is below 3, we probably will only see minor performance improvements at best anyway.) Also, note that while the diffstat looks kind of long (nearly 100 lines), more than half of it is in two comments explaining how things work. For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28), this change improves the performance as follows: Before After no-renames: 205.1 ms ± 3.8 ms 204.2 ms ± 3.0 ms mega-renames: 1.564 s ± 0.010 s 1.076 s ± 0.015 s just-one-mega: 479.5 ms ± 3.9 ms 364.1 ms ± 7.0 ms Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-07-16 08:22:37 +03:00
if (opt->priv->renames.redo_after_renames == 2) {
trace2_region_enter("merge", "reset_maps", opt->repo);
clear_or_reinit_internal_opts(opt->priv, 1);
trace2_region_leave("merge", "reset_maps", opt->repo);
goto redo;
}
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "process_entries", opt->repo);
process_entries(opt, &working_tree_oid);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "process_entries", opt->repo);
/* Set return values */
result->tree = parse_tree_indirect(&working_tree_oid);
/* existence of conflicted entries implies unclean */
result->clean &= strmap_empty(&opt->priv->conflicted);
if (!opt->priv->call_depth) {
result->priv = opt->priv;
result->_properly_initialized = RESULT_INITIALIZED;
opt->priv = NULL;
}
}
/*
* Originally from merge_recursive_internal(); somewhat adapted, though.
*/
static void merge_ort_internal(struct merge_options *opt,
struct commit_list *merge_bases,
struct commit *h1,
struct commit *h2,
struct merge_result *result)
{
struct commit_list *iter;
struct commit *merged_merge_bases;
const char *ancestor_name;
struct strbuf merge_base_abbrev = STRBUF_INIT;
if (!merge_bases) {
merge_bases = get_merge_bases(h1, h2);
/* See merge-ort.h:merge_incore_recursive() declaration NOTE */
merge_bases = reverse_commit_list(merge_bases);
}
merged_merge_bases = pop_commit(&merge_bases);
if (merged_merge_bases == NULL) {
/* if there is no common ancestor, use an empty tree */
struct tree *tree;
tree = lookup_tree(opt->repo, opt->repo->hash_algo->empty_tree);
merged_merge_bases = make_virtual_commit(opt->repo, tree,
"ancestor");
ancestor_name = "empty tree";
} else if (merge_bases) {
ancestor_name = "merged common ancestors";
} else {
strbuf_add_unique_abbrev(&merge_base_abbrev,
&merged_merge_bases->object.oid,
DEFAULT_ABBREV);
ancestor_name = merge_base_abbrev.buf;
}
for (iter = merge_bases; iter; iter = iter->next) {
const char *saved_b1, *saved_b2;
struct commit *prev = merged_merge_bases;
opt->priv->call_depth++;
/*
* When the merge fails, the result contains files
* with conflict markers. The cleanness flag is
* ignored (unless indicating an error), it was never
* actually used, as result of merge_trees has always
* overwritten it: the committed "conflicts" were
* already resolved.
*/
saved_b1 = opt->branch1;
saved_b2 = opt->branch2;
opt->branch1 = "Temporary merge branch 1";
opt->branch2 = "Temporary merge branch 2";
merge_ort_internal(opt, NULL, prev, iter->item, result);
if (result->clean < 0)
return;
opt->branch1 = saved_b1;
opt->branch2 = saved_b2;
opt->priv->call_depth--;
merged_merge_bases = make_virtual_commit(opt->repo,
result->tree,
"merged tree");
commit_list_insert(prev, &merged_merge_bases->parents);
commit_list_insert(iter->item,
&merged_merge_bases->parents->next);
clear_or_reinit_internal_opts(opt->priv, 1);
}
opt->ancestor = ancestor_name;
merge_ort_nonrecursive_internal(opt,
repo_get_commit_tree(opt->repo,
merged_merge_bases),
repo_get_commit_tree(opt->repo, h1),
repo_get_commit_tree(opt->repo, h2),
result);
strbuf_release(&merge_base_abbrev);
opt->ancestor = NULL; /* avoid accidental re-use of opt->ancestor */
}
void merge_incore_nonrecursive(struct merge_options *opt,
struct tree *merge_base,
struct tree *side1,
struct tree *side2,
struct merge_result *result)
{
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "incore_nonrecursive", opt->repo);
trace2_region_enter("merge", "merge_start", opt->repo);
assert(opt->ancestor != NULL);
merge-ort: add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused We need to know when renames detected in a previous merge operation can be reused in a later merge operation. Consider the following setup (from the git-rebase manpage): A---B---C topic / D---E---F---G master After rebasing, this will appear as: A'--B'--C' topic / D---E---F---G master Further, let's say that 'oldfile' was renamed to 'newfile' between E and G. The rebase or cherry-pick of A onto G will involve a three-way merge between E (as the merge base) and G and A. After detecting the rename between E:oldfile and G:newfile, there will be a three-way content merge of the following: E:oldfile G:newfile A:oldfile and produce a new result: A':newfile Now, when we want to pick B onto A', we will need to do a three-way merge between A (as the merge-base) and A' and B. This will involve a three-way content merge of A:oldfile A':newfile B:oldfile but only if we can detect that A:oldfile is similar enough to A':newfile to be used together in a three-way content merge, i.e. only if we can detect that A:oldfile and A':newfile are a rename. But we already know that A:oldfile and A':newfile are similar enough to be used in a three-way content merge, because that is precisely where A':newfile came from in the previous merge. Note that A & A' both appear in both merges. That gives us the condition under which we can reuse renames. There are a couple important points about this optimization: - If the rebase or cherry-pick halts for user conflicts, these caches are NOT saved anywhere. Thus, resuming a halted rebase or cherry-pick will result in no reused renames for the next commit. This is intentional, as user resolution can change files significantly and in ways that violate the similarity assumptions here. - Technically, in a *very* narrow case this might give slightly different results for rename detection. Using the example above, if: * E:oldfile had 20 lines * G:newfile added 10 new lines at the beginning of the file * A:oldfile deleted all but the first three lines of the file then => A':newfile would have 13 lines, 3 of which matches those in A:oldfile. Consider the two cases: * Without this optimization: - the next step of the rebase operation (moving B to B') would not detect the rename betwen A:oldfile and A':newfile - we'd thus get a modify/delete conflict with the rebase operation halting for the user to resolve, and have both A':newfile and B:oldfile sitting in the working tree. * With this optimization: - the rename between A:oldfile and A':newfile would be detected via the cache of renames - a three-way merge between A:oldfile, A':newfile, and B:oldfile would commence and be written to A':newfile Now, is the difference in behavior a bug...or a bugfix? I can't tell. Given that A:oldfile and A':newfile are not very similar, when we three-way merge with B:oldfile it seems likely we'll hit a conflict for the user to resolve. And it shouldn't be too hard for users to see why we did that three-way merge; oldfile and newfile *were* renames somewhere in the sequence. So, most of these corner cases will still behave similarly -- namely, a conflict given to the user to resolve. Also, consider the interesting case when commit B is a clean revert of commit A. Without this optimization, a rebase could not both apply a weird patch like A and then immediately revert it; users would be forced to resolve merge conflicts. With this optimization, it would successfully apply the clean revert. So, there is certainly at least one case that behaves better. Even if it's considered a "difference in behavior", I think both behaviors are reasonable, and the time savings provided by this optimization justify using the slightly altered rename heuristics. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:36 +03:00
merge_check_renames_reusable(opt, result, merge_base, side1, side2);
merge_start(opt, result);
merge-ort: add code to check for whether cached renames can be reused We need to know when renames detected in a previous merge operation can be reused in a later merge operation. Consider the following setup (from the git-rebase manpage): A---B---C topic / D---E---F---G master After rebasing, this will appear as: A'--B'--C' topic / D---E---F---G master Further, let's say that 'oldfile' was renamed to 'newfile' between E and G. The rebase or cherry-pick of A onto G will involve a three-way merge between E (as the merge base) and G and A. After detecting the rename between E:oldfile and G:newfile, there will be a three-way content merge of the following: E:oldfile G:newfile A:oldfile and produce a new result: A':newfile Now, when we want to pick B onto A', we will need to do a three-way merge between A (as the merge-base) and A' and B. This will involve a three-way content merge of A:oldfile A':newfile B:oldfile but only if we can detect that A:oldfile is similar enough to A':newfile to be used together in a three-way content merge, i.e. only if we can detect that A:oldfile and A':newfile are a rename. But we already know that A:oldfile and A':newfile are similar enough to be used in a three-way content merge, because that is precisely where A':newfile came from in the previous merge. Note that A & A' both appear in both merges. That gives us the condition under which we can reuse renames. There are a couple important points about this optimization: - If the rebase or cherry-pick halts for user conflicts, these caches are NOT saved anywhere. Thus, resuming a halted rebase or cherry-pick will result in no reused renames for the next commit. This is intentional, as user resolution can change files significantly and in ways that violate the similarity assumptions here. - Technically, in a *very* narrow case this might give slightly different results for rename detection. Using the example above, if: * E:oldfile had 20 lines * G:newfile added 10 new lines at the beginning of the file * A:oldfile deleted all but the first three lines of the file then => A':newfile would have 13 lines, 3 of which matches those in A:oldfile. Consider the two cases: * Without this optimization: - the next step of the rebase operation (moving B to B') would not detect the rename betwen A:oldfile and A':newfile - we'd thus get a modify/delete conflict with the rebase operation halting for the user to resolve, and have both A':newfile and B:oldfile sitting in the working tree. * With this optimization: - the rename between A:oldfile and A':newfile would be detected via the cache of renames - a three-way merge between A:oldfile, A':newfile, and B:oldfile would commence and be written to A':newfile Now, is the difference in behavior a bug...or a bugfix? I can't tell. Given that A:oldfile and A':newfile are not very similar, when we three-way merge with B:oldfile it seems likely we'll hit a conflict for the user to resolve. And it shouldn't be too hard for users to see why we did that three-way merge; oldfile and newfile *were* renames somewhere in the sequence. So, most of these corner cases will still behave similarly -- namely, a conflict given to the user to resolve. Also, consider the interesting case when commit B is a clean revert of commit A. Without this optimization, a rebase could not both apply a weird patch like A and then immediately revert it; users would be forced to resolve merge conflicts. With this optimization, it would successfully apply the clean revert. So, there is certainly at least one case that behaves better. Even if it's considered a "difference in behavior", I think both behaviors are reasonable, and the time savings provided by this optimization justify using the slightly altered rename heuristics. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-05-20 09:09:36 +03:00
/*
* Record the trees used in this merge, so if there's a next merge in
* a cherry-pick or rebase sequence it might be able to take advantage
* of the cached_pairs in that next merge.
*/
opt->priv->renames.merge_trees[0] = merge_base;
opt->priv->renames.merge_trees[1] = side1;
opt->priv->renames.merge_trees[2] = side2;
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "merge_start", opt->repo);
merge_ort_nonrecursive_internal(opt, merge_base, side1, side2, result);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "incore_nonrecursive", opt->repo);
}
void merge_incore_recursive(struct merge_options *opt,
struct commit_list *merge_bases,
struct commit *side1,
struct commit *side2,
struct merge_result *result)
{
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "incore_recursive", opt->repo);
/* We set the ancestor label based on the merge_bases */
assert(opt->ancestor == NULL);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_enter("merge", "merge_start", opt->repo);
merge_start(opt, result);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "merge_start", opt->repo);
merge_ort_internal(opt, merge_bases, side1, side2, result);
merge-ort: begin performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls Add some timing instrumentation for both merge-ort and diffcore-rename; I used these to measure and optimize performance in both, and several future patch series will build on these to reduce the timings of some select testcases. === Setup === The primary testcase I used involved rebasing a random topic in the linux kernel (consisting of 35 patches) against an older version. I added two variants, one where I rename a toplevel directory, and another where I only rebase one patch instead of the whole topic. The setup is as follows: $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git $ git branch hwmon-updates fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e $ git branch hwmon-just-one fd8bdb23b91876ac1e624337bb88dc1dcc21d67e~34 $ git branch base 4703d9119972bf586d2cca76ec6438f819ffa30e $ git switch -c 5.4-renames v5.4 $ git mv drivers pilots # Introduce over 26,000 renames $ git commit -m "Rename drivers/ to pilots/" $ git config merge.renameLimit 30000 $ git config merge.directoryRenames true === Testcases === Now with REBASE standing for either "git rebase [--merge]" (using merge-recursive) or "test-tool fast-rebase" (using merge-ort), the testcases are: Testcase #1: no-renames $ git checkout v5.4^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Note: technically the name is misleading; there are some renames, but very few. Rename detection only takes about half the overall time. Testcase #2: mega-renames $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-updates Testcase #3: just-one-mega $ git checkout 5.4-renames^0 $ REBASE --onto HEAD base hwmon-just-one === Timing results === Overall timings, using hyperfine (1 warmup run, 3 runs for mega-renames, 10 runs for the other two cases): merge-recursive merge-ort no-renames: 18.912 s ± 0.174 s 14.263 s ± 0.053 s mega-renames: 5964.031 s ± 10.459 s 5504.231 s ± 5.150 s just-one-mega: 149.583 s ± 0.751 s 158.534 s ± 0.498 s A single re-run of each with some breakdowns: --- no-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 19.302 s 14.257 s inexact rename detection: 7.603 s 7.906 s everything else: 11.699 s 6.351 s --- mega-renames --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 5950.195 s 5499.672 s inexact rename detection: 5746.309 s 5487.120 s everything else: 203.886 s 17.552 s --- just-one-mega --- merge-recursive merge-ort overall runtime: 151.001 s 158.582 s inexact rename detection: 143.448 s 157.835 s everything else: 7.553 s 0.747 s === Timing observations === 0) Maximum speedup The "everything else" row represents the maximum speedup we could achieve if we were to somehow infinitely parallelize inexact rename detection, but leave everything else alone. The fact that this is so much smaller than the real runtime (even in the case with virtually no renames) makes it clear just how overwhelmingly large the time spent on rename detection can be. 1) no-renames 1a) merge-ort is faster than merge-recursive, which is nice. However, this still should not be considered good enough. Although the "merge" backend to rebase (merge-recursive) is sometimes faster than the "apply" backend, this is one of those cases where it is not. In fact, even merge-ort is slower. The "apply" backend can complete this testcase in 6.940 s ± 0.485 s which is about 2x faster than merge-ort and 3x faster than merge-recursive. One goal of the merge-ort performance work will be to make it faster than git-am on this (and similar) testcases. 2) mega-renames 2a) Obviously rename detection is a huge cost; it's where most the time is spent. We need to cut that down. If we could somehow infinitely parallelize it and drive its time to 0, the merge-recursive time would drop to about 204s, and the merge-ort time would drop to about 17s. I think this particular stat shows I've subtly baked a couple performance improvements into merge-ort and into fast-rebase already. 3) just-one-mega 3a) not much to say here, it just gives some flavor for how rebasing only one patch compares to rebasing 35. === Goals === This patch is obviously just the beginning. Here are some of my goals that this measurement will help us achieve: * Drive the cost of rename detection down considerably for merges * After the above has been achieved, see if there are other slowness factors (which would have previously been overshadowed by rename detection costs) which we can then focus on and also optimize. * Ensure our rebase testcase that requires little rename detection is noticeably faster with merge-ort than with apply-based rebase. Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Acked-by: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2021-01-24 09:01:12 +03:00
trace2_region_leave("merge", "incore_recursive", opt->repo);
}