git/t/t5314-pack-cycle-detection.sh

116 lines
3.9 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

pack-objects: break delta cycles before delta-search phase We do not allow cycles in the delta graph of a pack (i.e., A is a delta of B which is a delta of A) for the obvious reason that you cannot actually access any of the objects in such a case. There's a last-ditch attempt to notice cycles during the write phase, during which we issue a warning to the user and write one of the objects out in full. However, this is "last-ditch" for two reasons: 1. By this time, it's too late to find another delta for the object, so the resulting pack is larger than it otherwise could be. 2. The warning is there because this is something that _shouldn't_ ever happen. If it does, then either: a. a pack we are reusing deltas from had its own cycle b. we are reusing deltas from multiple packs, and we found a cycle among them (i.e., A is a delta of B in one pack, but B is a delta of A in another, and we choose to use both deltas). c. there is a bug in the delta-search code So this code serves as a final check that none of these things has happened, warns the user, and prevents us from writing a bogus pack. Right now, (2b) should never happen because of the static ordering of packs in want_object_in_pack(). If two objects have a delta relationship, then they must be in the same pack, and therefore we will find them from that same pack. However, a future patch would like to change that static ordering, which will make (2b) a common occurrence. In preparation, we should be able to handle those kinds of cycles better. This patch does by introducing a cycle-breaking step during the get_object_details() phase, when we are deciding which deltas can be reused. That gives us the chance to feed the objects into the delta search as if the cycle did not exist. We'll leave the detection and warning in the write_object() phase in place, as it still serves as a check for case (2c). This does mean we will stop warning for (2a). That case is caused by bogus input packs, and we ideally would warn the user about it. However, since those cycles show up after picking reusable deltas, they look the same as (2b) to us; our new code will break the cycles early and the last-ditch check will never see them. We could do analysis on any cycles that we find to distinguish the two cases (i.e., it is a bogus pack if and only if every delta in the cycle is in the same pack), but we don't need to. If there is a cycle inside a pack, we'll run into problems not only reusing the delta, but accessing the object data at all. So when we try to dig up the actual size of the object, we'll hit that same cycle and kick in our usual complain-and-try-another-source code. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-11 09:26:36 +00:00
#!/bin/sh
test_description='test handling of inter-pack delta cycles during repack
The goal here is to create a situation where we have two blobs, A and B, with A
as a delta against B in one pack, and vice versa in the other. Then if we can
persuade a full repack to find A from one pack and B from the other, that will
give us a cycle when we attempt to reuse those deltas.
The trick is in the "persuade" step, as it depends on the internals of how
pack-objects picks which pack to reuse the deltas from. But we can assume
that it does so in one of two general strategies:
1. Using a static ordering of packs. In this case, no inter-pack cycles can
happen. Any objects with a delta relationship must be present in the same
pack (i.e., no "--thin" packs on disk), so we will find all related objects
from that pack. So assuming there are no cycles within a single pack (and
we avoid generating them via pack-objects or importing them via
index-pack), then our result will have no cycles.
So this case should pass the tests no matter how we arrange things.
2. Picking the next pack to examine based on locality (i.e., where we found
something else recently).
In this case, we want to make sure that we find the delta versions of A and
B and not their base versions. We can do this by putting two blobs in each
pack. The first is a "dummy" blob that can only be found in the pack in
question. And then the second is the actual delta we want to find.
The two blobs must be present in the same tree, not present in other trees,
and the dummy pathname must sort before the delta path.
The setup below focuses on case 2. We have two commits HEAD and HEAD^, each
which has two files: "dummy" and "file". Then we can make two packs which
contain:
[pack one]
HEAD:dummy
HEAD:file (as delta against HEAD^:file)
HEAD^:file (as base)
[pack two]
HEAD^:dummy
HEAD^:file (as delta against HEAD:file)
HEAD:file (as base)
Then no matter which order we start looking at the packs in, we know that we
will always find a delta for "file", because its lookup will always come
immediately after the lookup for "dummy".
'
TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true
. ./test-lib.sh
pack-objects: break delta cycles before delta-search phase We do not allow cycles in the delta graph of a pack (i.e., A is a delta of B which is a delta of A) for the obvious reason that you cannot actually access any of the objects in such a case. There's a last-ditch attempt to notice cycles during the write phase, during which we issue a warning to the user and write one of the objects out in full. However, this is "last-ditch" for two reasons: 1. By this time, it's too late to find another delta for the object, so the resulting pack is larger than it otherwise could be. 2. The warning is there because this is something that _shouldn't_ ever happen. If it does, then either: a. a pack we are reusing deltas from had its own cycle b. we are reusing deltas from multiple packs, and we found a cycle among them (i.e., A is a delta of B in one pack, but B is a delta of A in another, and we choose to use both deltas). c. there is a bug in the delta-search code So this code serves as a final check that none of these things has happened, warns the user, and prevents us from writing a bogus pack. Right now, (2b) should never happen because of the static ordering of packs in want_object_in_pack(). If two objects have a delta relationship, then they must be in the same pack, and therefore we will find them from that same pack. However, a future patch would like to change that static ordering, which will make (2b) a common occurrence. In preparation, we should be able to handle those kinds of cycles better. This patch does by introducing a cycle-breaking step during the get_object_details() phase, when we are deciding which deltas can be reused. That gives us the chance to feed the objects into the delta search as if the cycle did not exist. We'll leave the detection and warning in the write_object() phase in place, as it still serves as a check for case (2c). This does mean we will stop warning for (2a). That case is caused by bogus input packs, and we ideally would warn the user about it. However, since those cycles show up after picking reusable deltas, they look the same as (2b) to us; our new code will break the cycles early and the last-ditch check will never see them. We could do analysis on any cycles that we find to distinguish the two cases (i.e., it is a bogus pack if and only if every delta in the cycle is in the same pack), but we don't need to. If there is a cycle inside a pack, we'll run into problems not only reusing the delta, but accessing the object data at all. So when we try to dig up the actual size of the object, we'll hit that same cycle and kick in our usual complain-and-try-another-source code. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-11 09:26:36 +00:00
# Create a pack containing the tree $1 and blob $1:file, with
pack-objects: break delta cycles before delta-search phase We do not allow cycles in the delta graph of a pack (i.e., A is a delta of B which is a delta of A) for the obvious reason that you cannot actually access any of the objects in such a case. There's a last-ditch attempt to notice cycles during the write phase, during which we issue a warning to the user and write one of the objects out in full. However, this is "last-ditch" for two reasons: 1. By this time, it's too late to find another delta for the object, so the resulting pack is larger than it otherwise could be. 2. The warning is there because this is something that _shouldn't_ ever happen. If it does, then either: a. a pack we are reusing deltas from had its own cycle b. we are reusing deltas from multiple packs, and we found a cycle among them (i.e., A is a delta of B in one pack, but B is a delta of A in another, and we choose to use both deltas). c. there is a bug in the delta-search code So this code serves as a final check that none of these things has happened, warns the user, and prevents us from writing a bogus pack. Right now, (2b) should never happen because of the static ordering of packs in want_object_in_pack(). If two objects have a delta relationship, then they must be in the same pack, and therefore we will find them from that same pack. However, a future patch would like to change that static ordering, which will make (2b) a common occurrence. In preparation, we should be able to handle those kinds of cycles better. This patch does by introducing a cycle-breaking step during the get_object_details() phase, when we are deciding which deltas can be reused. That gives us the chance to feed the objects into the delta search as if the cycle did not exist. We'll leave the detection and warning in the write_object() phase in place, as it still serves as a check for case (2c). This does mean we will stop warning for (2a). That case is caused by bogus input packs, and we ideally would warn the user about it. However, since those cycles show up after picking reusable deltas, they look the same as (2b) to us; our new code will break the cycles early and the last-ditch check will never see them. We could do analysis on any cycles that we find to distinguish the two cases (i.e., it is a bogus pack if and only if every delta in the cycle is in the same pack), but we don't need to. If there is a cycle inside a pack, we'll run into problems not only reusing the delta, but accessing the object data at all. So when we try to dig up the actual size of the object, we'll hit that same cycle and kick in our usual complain-and-try-another-source code. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-11 09:26:36 +00:00
# the latter stored as a delta against $2:file.
#
# We convince pack-objects to make the delta in the direction of our choosing
# by marking $2 as a preferred-base edge. That results in $1:file as a thin
# delta, and index-pack completes it by adding $2:file as a base.
#
# Note that the two variants of "file" must be similar enough to convince git
# to create the delta.
make_pack () {
ln1=$(git rev-parse "$2") &&
ln2=$(git rev-parse "$1:dummy") &&
ln3=$(git rev-parse "$1:file") &&
cat >list <<-EOF
-$ln1
$ln2 dummy
$ln3 file
EOF
git pack-objects --stdout <list >pack &&
git index-pack --stdin --fix-thin <pack
pack-objects: break delta cycles before delta-search phase We do not allow cycles in the delta graph of a pack (i.e., A is a delta of B which is a delta of A) for the obvious reason that you cannot actually access any of the objects in such a case. There's a last-ditch attempt to notice cycles during the write phase, during which we issue a warning to the user and write one of the objects out in full. However, this is "last-ditch" for two reasons: 1. By this time, it's too late to find another delta for the object, so the resulting pack is larger than it otherwise could be. 2. The warning is there because this is something that _shouldn't_ ever happen. If it does, then either: a. a pack we are reusing deltas from had its own cycle b. we are reusing deltas from multiple packs, and we found a cycle among them (i.e., A is a delta of B in one pack, but B is a delta of A in another, and we choose to use both deltas). c. there is a bug in the delta-search code So this code serves as a final check that none of these things has happened, warns the user, and prevents us from writing a bogus pack. Right now, (2b) should never happen because of the static ordering of packs in want_object_in_pack(). If two objects have a delta relationship, then they must be in the same pack, and therefore we will find them from that same pack. However, a future patch would like to change that static ordering, which will make (2b) a common occurrence. In preparation, we should be able to handle those kinds of cycles better. This patch does by introducing a cycle-breaking step during the get_object_details() phase, when we are deciding which deltas can be reused. That gives us the chance to feed the objects into the delta search as if the cycle did not exist. We'll leave the detection and warning in the write_object() phase in place, as it still serves as a check for case (2c). This does mean we will stop warning for (2a). That case is caused by bogus input packs, and we ideally would warn the user about it. However, since those cycles show up after picking reusable deltas, they look the same as (2b) to us; our new code will break the cycles early and the last-ditch check will never see them. We could do analysis on any cycles that we find to distinguish the two cases (i.e., it is a bogus pack if and only if every delta in the cycle is in the same pack), but we don't need to. If there is a cycle inside a pack, we'll run into problems not only reusing the delta, but accessing the object data at all. So when we try to dig up the actual size of the object, we'll hit that same cycle and kick in our usual complain-and-try-another-source code. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-11 09:26:36 +00:00
}
test_expect_success 'setup' '
test-tool genrandom base 4096 >base &&
pack-objects: break delta cycles before delta-search phase We do not allow cycles in the delta graph of a pack (i.e., A is a delta of B which is a delta of A) for the obvious reason that you cannot actually access any of the objects in such a case. There's a last-ditch attempt to notice cycles during the write phase, during which we issue a warning to the user and write one of the objects out in full. However, this is "last-ditch" for two reasons: 1. By this time, it's too late to find another delta for the object, so the resulting pack is larger than it otherwise could be. 2. The warning is there because this is something that _shouldn't_ ever happen. If it does, then either: a. a pack we are reusing deltas from had its own cycle b. we are reusing deltas from multiple packs, and we found a cycle among them (i.e., A is a delta of B in one pack, but B is a delta of A in another, and we choose to use both deltas). c. there is a bug in the delta-search code So this code serves as a final check that none of these things has happened, warns the user, and prevents us from writing a bogus pack. Right now, (2b) should never happen because of the static ordering of packs in want_object_in_pack(). If two objects have a delta relationship, then they must be in the same pack, and therefore we will find them from that same pack. However, a future patch would like to change that static ordering, which will make (2b) a common occurrence. In preparation, we should be able to handle those kinds of cycles better. This patch does by introducing a cycle-breaking step during the get_object_details() phase, when we are deciding which deltas can be reused. That gives us the chance to feed the objects into the delta search as if the cycle did not exist. We'll leave the detection and warning in the write_object() phase in place, as it still serves as a check for case (2c). This does mean we will stop warning for (2a). That case is caused by bogus input packs, and we ideally would warn the user about it. However, since those cycles show up after picking reusable deltas, they look the same as (2b) to us; our new code will break the cycles early and the last-ditch check will never see them. We could do analysis on any cycles that we find to distinguish the two cases (i.e., it is a bogus pack if and only if every delta in the cycle is in the same pack), but we don't need to. If there is a cycle inside a pack, we'll run into problems not only reusing the delta, but accessing the object data at all. So when we try to dig up the actual size of the object, we'll hit that same cycle and kick in our usual complain-and-try-another-source code. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-11 09:26:36 +00:00
for i in one two
do
# we want shared content here to encourage deltas...
cp base file &&
echo $i >>file &&
# ...whereas dummy should be short, because we do not want
# deltas that would create duplicates when we --fix-thin
echo $i >dummy &&
git add file dummy &&
test_tick &&
git commit -m $i ||
return 1
done &&
make_pack HEAD^ HEAD &&
make_pack HEAD HEAD^
'
test_expect_success 'repack' '
# We first want to check that we do not have any internal errors,
# and also that we do not hit the last-ditch cycle-breaking code
# in write_object(), which will issue a warning to stderr.
git repack -ad 2>stderr &&
tests: use 'test_must_be_empty' instead of 'test_cmp <empty> <out>' Using 'test_must_be_empty' is shorter and more idiomatic than >empty && test_cmp empty out as it saves the creation of an empty file. Furthermore, sometimes the expected empty file doesn't have such a descriptive name like 'empty', and its creation is far away from the place where it's finally used for comparison (e.g. in 't7600-merge.sh', where two expected empty files are created in the 'setup' test, but are used only about 500 lines later). These cases were found by instrumenting 'test_cmp' to error out the test script when it's used to compare empty files, and then converted manually. Note that even after this patch there still remain a lot of cases where we use 'test_cmp' to check empty files: - Sometimes the expected output is not hard-coded in the test, but 'test_cmp' is used to ensure that two similar git commands produce the same output, and that output happens to be empty, e.g. the test 'submodule update --merge - ignores --merge for new submodules' in 't7406-submodule-update.sh'. - Repetitive common tasks, including preparing the expected results and running 'test_cmp', are often extracted into a helper function, and some of this helper's callsites expect no output. - For the same reason as above, the whole 'test_expect_success' block is within a helper function, e.g. in 't3070-wildmatch.sh'. - Or 'test_cmp' is invoked in a loop, e.g. the test 'cvs update (-p)' in 't9400-git-cvsserver-server.sh'. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-19 21:57:25 +00:00
test_must_be_empty stderr &&
pack-objects: break delta cycles before delta-search phase We do not allow cycles in the delta graph of a pack (i.e., A is a delta of B which is a delta of A) for the obvious reason that you cannot actually access any of the objects in such a case. There's a last-ditch attempt to notice cycles during the write phase, during which we issue a warning to the user and write one of the objects out in full. However, this is "last-ditch" for two reasons: 1. By this time, it's too late to find another delta for the object, so the resulting pack is larger than it otherwise could be. 2. The warning is there because this is something that _shouldn't_ ever happen. If it does, then either: a. a pack we are reusing deltas from had its own cycle b. we are reusing deltas from multiple packs, and we found a cycle among them (i.e., A is a delta of B in one pack, but B is a delta of A in another, and we choose to use both deltas). c. there is a bug in the delta-search code So this code serves as a final check that none of these things has happened, warns the user, and prevents us from writing a bogus pack. Right now, (2b) should never happen because of the static ordering of packs in want_object_in_pack(). If two objects have a delta relationship, then they must be in the same pack, and therefore we will find them from that same pack. However, a future patch would like to change that static ordering, which will make (2b) a common occurrence. In preparation, we should be able to handle those kinds of cycles better. This patch does by introducing a cycle-breaking step during the get_object_details() phase, when we are deciding which deltas can be reused. That gives us the chance to feed the objects into the delta search as if the cycle did not exist. We'll leave the detection and warning in the write_object() phase in place, as it still serves as a check for case (2c). This does mean we will stop warning for (2a). That case is caused by bogus input packs, and we ideally would warn the user about it. However, since those cycles show up after picking reusable deltas, they look the same as (2b) to us; our new code will break the cycles early and the last-ditch check will never see them. We could do analysis on any cycles that we find to distinguish the two cases (i.e., it is a bogus pack if and only if every delta in the cycle is in the same pack), but we don't need to. If there is a cycle inside a pack, we'll run into problems not only reusing the delta, but accessing the object data at all. So when we try to dig up the actual size of the object, we'll hit that same cycle and kick in our usual complain-and-try-another-source code. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-08-11 09:26:36 +00:00
# And then double-check that the resulting pack is usable (i.e.,
# we did not fail to notice any cycles). We know we are accessing
# the objects via the new pack here, because "repack -d" will have
# removed the others.
git cat-file blob HEAD:file >/dev/null &&
git cat-file blob HEAD^:file >/dev/null
'
test_done