"git repack" learned "--max-cruft-size" to prevent cruft packs from
growing without bounds.
* tb/repack-max-cruft-size:
repack: free existing_cruft array after use
builtin/repack.c: avoid making cruft packs preferred
builtin/repack.c: implement support for `--max-cruft-size`
builtin/repack.c: parse `--max-pack-size` with OPT_MAGNITUDE
t7700: split cruft-related tests to t7704
Cruft packs are an alternative mechanism for storing a collection of
unreachable objects whose mtimes are recent enough to avoid being
pruned out of the repository.
When cruft packs were first introduced back in b757353676
(builtin/pack-objects.c: --cruft without expiration, 2022-05-20) and
a7d493833f (builtin/pack-objects.c: --cruft with expiration,
2022-05-20), the recommended workflow consisted of:
- Repacking periodically, either by packing anything loose in the
repository (via `git repack -d`) or producing a geometric sequence
of packs (via `git repack --geometric=<d> -d`).
- Every so often, splitting the repository into two packs, one cruft
to store the unreachable objects, and another non-cruft pack to
store the reachable objects.
Repositories may (out of band with the above) choose periodically to
prune out some unreachable objects which have aged out of the grace
period by generating a pack with `--cruft-expiration=<approxidate>`.
This allowed repositories to maintain relatively few packs on average,
and quarantine unreachable objects together in a cruft pack, avoiding
the pitfalls of holding unreachable objects as loose while they age out
(for more, see some of the details in 3d89a8c118
(Documentation/technical: add cruft-packs.txt, 2022-05-20)).
This all works, but can be costly from an I/O-perspective when
frequently repacking a repository that has many unreachable objects.
This problem is exacerbated when those unreachable objects are rarely
(if every) pruned.
Since there is at most one cruft pack in the above scheme, each time we
update the cruft pack it must be rewritten from scratch. Because much of
the pack is reused, this is a relatively inexpensive operation from a
CPU-perspective, but is very costly in terms of I/O since we end up
rewriting basically the same pack (plus any new unreachable objects that
have entered the repository since the last time a cruft pack was
generated).
At the time, we decided against implementing more robust support for
multiple cruft packs. This patch implements that support which we were
lacking.
Introduce a new option `--max-cruft-size` which allows repositories to
accumulate cruft packs up to a given size, after which point a new
generation of cruft packs can accumulate until it reaches the maximum
size, and so on. To generate a new cruft pack, the process works like
so:
- Sort a list of any existing cruft packs in ascending order of pack
size.
- Starting from the beginning of the list, group cruft packs together
while the accumulated size is smaller than the maximum specified
pack size.
- Combine the objects in these cruft packs together into a new cruft
pack, along with any other unreachable objects which have since
entered the repository.
Once a cruft pack grows beyond the size specified via `--max-cruft-size`
the pack is effectively frozen. This limits the I/O churn up to a
quadratic function of the value specified by the `--max-cruft-size`
option, instead of behaving quadratically in the number of total
unreachable objects.
When pruning unreachable objects, we bypass the new code paths which
combine small cruft packs together, and instead start from scratch,
passing in the appropriate `--max-pack-size` down to `pack-objects`,
putting it in charge of keeping the resulting set of cruft packs sized
correctly.
This may seem like further I/O churn, but in practice it isn't so bad.
We could prune old cruft packs for whom all or most objects are removed,
and then generate a new cruft pack with just the remaining set of
objects. But this additional complexity buys us relatively little,
because most objects end up being pruned anyway, so the I/O churn is
well contained.
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A previous commit implemented the `gc.repackFilter` config option
to specify a filter that should be used by `git gc` when
performing repacks.
Another previous commit has implemented
`git repack --filter-to=<dir>` to specify the location of the
packfile containing filtered out objects when using a filter.
Let's implement the `gc.repackFilterTo` config option to specify
that location in the config when `gc.repackFilter` is used.
Now when `git gc` will perform a repack with a <dir> configured
through this option and not empty, the repack process will be
passed a corresponding `--filter-to=<dir>` argument.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A previous commit has implemented `git repack --filter=<filter-spec>` to
allow users to filter out some objects from the main pack and move them
into a new different pack.
Users might want to perform such a cleanup regularly at the same time as
they perform other repacks and cleanups, so as part of `git gc`.
Let's allow them to configure a <filter-spec> for that purpose using a
new gc.repackFilter config option.
Now when `git gc` will perform a repack with a <filter-spec> configured
through this option and not empty, the repack process will be passed a
corresponding `--filter=<filter-spec>` argument.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This patch introduces a new multi-valued configuration option,
`gc.recentObjectsHook` as a means to mark certain objects as recent (and
thus exempt from garbage collection), regardless of their age.
When performing a garbage collection operation on a repository with
unreachable objects, Git makes its decision on what to do with those
object(s) based on how recent the objects are or not. Generally speaking,
unreachable-but-recent objects stay in the repository, and older objects
are discarded.
However, we have no convenient way to keep certain precious, unreachable
objects around in the repository, even if they have aged out and would
be pruned. Our options today consist of:
- Point references at the reachability tips of any objects you
consider precious, which may be undesirable or infeasible if there
are many such objects.
- Track them via the reflog, which may be undesirable since the
reflog's lifetime is limited to that of the reference it's tracking
(and callers may want to keep those unreachable objects around for
longer).
- Extend the grace period, which may keep around other objects that
the caller *does* want to discard.
- Manually modify the mtimes of objects you want to keep. If those
objects are already loose, this is easy enough to do (you can just
enumerate and `touch -m` each one).
But if they are packed, you will either end up modifying the mtimes
of *all* objects in that pack, or be forced to write out a loose
copy of that object, both of which may be undesirable. Even worse,
if they are in a cruft pack, that requires modifying its `*.mtimes`
file by hand, since there is no exposed plumbing for this.
- Force the caller to construct the pack of objects they want
to keep themselves, and then mark the pack as kept by adding a
".keep" file. This works, but is burdensome for the caller, and
having extra packs is awkward as you roll forward your cruft pack.
This patch introduces a new option to the above list via the
`gc.recentObjectsHook` configuration, which allows the caller to
specify a program (or set of programs) whose output is treated as a set
of objects to treat as recent, regardless of their true age.
The implementation is straightforward. Git enumerates recent objects via
`add_unseen_recent_objects_to_traversal()`, which enumerates loose and
packed objects, and eventually calls add_recent_object() on any objects
for which `want_recent_object()`'s conditions are met.
This patch modifies the recency condition from simply "is the mtime of
this object more recent than the cutoff?" to "[...] or, is this object
mentioned by at least one `gc.recentObjectsHook`?".
Depending on whether or not we are generating a cruft pack, this allows
the caller to do one of two things:
- If generating a cruft pack, the caller is able to retain additional
objects via the cruft pack, even if they would have otherwise been
pruned due to their age.
- If not generating a cruft pack, the caller is likewise able to
retain additional objects as loose.
A potential alternative here is to introduce a new mode to alter the
contents of the reachable pack instead of the cruft one. One could
imagine a new option to `pack-objects`, say `--extra-reachable-tips`
that does the same thing as above, adding the visited set of objects
along the traversal to the pack.
But this has the unfortunate side-effect of altering the reachability
closure of that pack. If parts of the unreachable object graph mentioned
by one or more of the "extra reachable tips" programs is not closed,
then the resulting pack won't be either. This makes it impossible in the
general case to write out reachability bitmaps for that pack, since
closure is a requirement there.
Instead, keep these unreachable objects in the cruft pack (or set of
unreachable, loose objects) instead, to ensure that we can continue to
have a pack containing just reachable objects, which is always safe to
write a bitmap over.
Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Back in 5b92477f89 (builtin/gc.c: conditionally avoid pruning objects
via loose, 2022-05-20), `git gc` learned the `--cruft` option and
`gc.cruftPacks` configuration to opt-in to writing cruft packs when
collecting or pruning unreachable objects.
Cruft packs were introduced with the merge in a50036da1a (Merge branch
'tb/cruft-packs', 2022-06-03). They address the problem of "loose object
explosions", where Git will write out many individual loose objects when
there is a large number of unreachable objects that have not yet aged
past `--prune=<date>`.
Instead of keeping track of those unreachable yet recent objects via
their loose object file's mtime, cruft packs collect all unreachable
objects into a single pack with a corresponding `*.mtimes` file that
acts as a table to store the mtimes of all unreachable objects. This
prevents the need to store unreachable objects as loose as they age out
of the repository, and avoids the problem of loose object explosions.
Beyond avoiding loose object explosions, cruft packs also act as a more
efficient mechanism to store unreachable objects as they age out of a
repository. This is because pairs of similar unreachable objects serve
as delta bases for one another.
In 5b92477f89, the feature was introduced as experimental. Since then,
GitHub has been running these patches in every repository generating
hundreds of millions of cruft packs along the way. The feature is
battle-tested, and avoids many pathological cases such as above. Users
who either run `git gc` manually, or via `git maintenance` can benefit
from having cruft packs.
As such, enable cruft pack generation to take place by default (by
making `gc.cruftPacks` have the default of "true" rather than "false).
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When cruft packs were implemented, we never adjusted the code for `git
gc`'s `--keep-largest-pack` and `gc.bigPackThreshold` to ignore cruft
packs. This option and configuration option share a common
implementation, but including cruft packs is wrong in both cases:
- Running `git gc --keep-largest-pack` in a repository where the
largest pack is the cruft pack itself will make it impossible for
`git gc` to prune objects, since the cruft pack itself is kept.
- The same is true for `gc.bigPackThreshold`, if the size of the cruft
pack exceeds the limit set by the caller.
In the future, it is possible that `gc.bigPackThreshold` could be used
to write a separate cruft pack containing any new unreachable objects
that entered the repository since the last time a cruft pack was
written.
There are some complexities to doing so, mainly around handling
pruning objects that are in an existing cruft pack that is above the
threshold (which would either need to be rewritten, or else delay
pruning). Rewriting a substantially similar cruft pack isn't ideal, but
it is significantly better than the status-quo.
If users have large cruft packs that they don't want to rewrite, they
can mark them as `*.keep` packs. But in general, if a repository has a
cruft pack that is so large it is slowing down GC's, it should probably
be pruned anyway.
In the meantime, ignore cruft packs in the common implementation for
both of these options, and add a pair of tests to prevent any future
regressions here.
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Expose the new `git repack --cruft` mode from `git gc` via a new opt-in
flag. When invoked like `git gc --cruft`, `git gc` will avoid exploding
unreachable objects as loose ones, and instead create a cruft pack and
`.mtimes` file.
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The --keep-base-pack option never existed in git.git. It was the name
for the --keep-largest-pack option in earlier revisions of that series
before it landed as ae4e89e549 ("gc: add --keep-largest-pack option",
2018-04-15).
The later patches in that series[1][2] weren't changed to also refer
to --keep-largest-pack, so we've had this reference to a nonexisting
option ever since the feature initially landed.
1. 55dfe13df9 ("gc: add gc.bigPackThreshold config", 2018-04-15)
2. 9806f5a7bf ("gc --auto: exclude base pack if not enough mem to
"repack -ad"", 2018-04-15)
Reported-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The commit-graph feature has seen a lot of activity in the past
year or so since it was introduced. The feature is a critical
performance enhancement for medium- to large-sized repos, and
does not significantly hurt small repos.
Change the defaults for core.commitGraph and gc.writeCommitGraph
to true so users benefit from this feature by default.
There are several places in the test suite where the environment
variable GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH is disabled to avoid reading a
commit-graph, if it exists. The config option overrides the
environment, so swap these. Some GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH assignments
remain, and those are to avoid writing a commit-graph when a new
commit is created.
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since 07e7dbf0db (gc: default aggressive depth to 50, 2016-08-11) we
somewhat confusingly use the same depth under --aggressive as we do by
default.
As noted in that commit that makes sense, it was wrong to make more
depth the default for "aggressive", and thus save disk space at the
expense of runtime performance, which is usually the opposite of
someone who'd like "aggressive gc" wants.
But that's left us with a mostly-redundant configuration variable, so
let's clearly note in its documentation that it doesn't change the
default.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Change the AsciiDoc formatting so that an example of "gc --auto" isn't
rendered as "git-gc(1) --auto", but as "git gc --auto". This is
consistent with the rest of the links and command examples in this
documentation.
The formatting I'm changing was initially introduced in
d5d5d7b641 ("gc: automatically write commit-graph files", 2018-06-27).
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Re-flow the "gc.*" section in "config". A previous commit moved this
over from the "gc" docs, but tried to keep as many of the lines
identical to benefit from diff's move detection.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Rather than duplicating the documentation for the various "gc" options
let's include the "gc" docs from git-config. They were mostly better
already, and now we don't have the same docs in two places with subtly
different wording.
In the cases where the git-gc(1) docs were saying something the "gc"
docs in git-config(1) didn't cover move the relevant section over to
the git-config(1) docs.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
These tabs happen to appear in columns where they don't stand out too
much, so the diff here is non-obvious. Some of these are rendered
differently by AsciiDoc and Asciidoctor (although the difference might
be invisible!), which is how I found a few of them. The remainder were
found using `git grep "[a-zA-Z.,)]$TAB[a-zA-Z]"`.
Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
