For sanity, we should probably do one of the following:
(a) make C and header files both depend upon everything they need
(b) consistently exclude git-compat-util.h from headers and require it
be the first include in C files
Currently, we have some of the headers following (a) and others
following (b), which makes things messy. In the past I was pushed
towards (b), as per [1] and [2]. Further, during this series I
discovered that this mixture empirically will mean that we end up with C
files that do not directly include git-compat-util.h, and do include
headers that don't include git-compat-util.h, with the result that we
likely have headers included before an indirect inclusion of
git-compat-util.h. Since git-compat-util.h has tricky platform-specific
stuff that is meant to be included before everything else, this state of
affairs is risky and may lead to things breaking in subtle ways (and
only on some platforms) as per [1] and [2].
Since including git-compat-util.h in existing header files makes it
harder for us to catch C files that are missing that include, let's
switch to (b) to make the enforcement of this rule easier. Remove the
inclusion of git-compat-util.h from header files other than the ones
that have been approved as alternate first includes.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20180811173406.GA9119@sigill.intra.peff.net/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20180811174301.GA9287@sigill.intra.peff.net/
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
cb_unlink is broken once a node is no longer self-referential
due to subsequent insertions. This is a consequence of an
intrusive implementation and I'm not sure if it's easily fixable
while retaining our cache-friendly intrusive property (I've
tried for several hours in another project).
In any case, we're not using cb_unlink anywhere in our codebase,
just get rid of it to avoid misleading future readers.
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Use the same pattern for cb_init() as the one established in the
recent refactoring of other such patterns in
5726a6b401 (*.c *_init(): define in terms of corresponding *_INIT
macro, 2021-07-01).
It has been pointed out[1] that we could perhaps use this C99
replacement of using a compound literal for all of these:
*t = (struct cb_tree){ 0 };
But let's just stick to the existing pattern established in
5726a6b401 for now, we can leave another weather balloon for some
other time.
1. http://lore.kernel.org/git/ef724a3a-a4b8-65d3-c928-13a7d78f189a@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The flexible array member "k" of struct cb_node is used to store the key
of the crit-bit tree node. It offers no alignment guarantees -- in fact
the current struct layout puts it one byte after a 4-byte aligned
address, i.e. guaranteed to be misaligned.
oidtree uses a struct object_id as cb_node key. Since cf0983213c (hash:
add an algo member to struct object_id, 2021-04-26) it requires 4-byte
alignment. The mismatch is reported by UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer at
runtime like this:
hash.h:277:2: runtime error: member access within misaligned address 0x00015000802d for type 'struct object_id', which requires 4 byte alignment
0x00015000802d: note: pointer points here
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
^
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior hash.h:277:2 in
We can fix that by:
1. eliminating the alignment requirement of struct object_id,
2. providing the alignment in struct cb_node, or
3. avoiding the issue by only using memcpy to access "k".
Currently we only store one of two values in "algo" in struct object_id.
We could use a uint8_t for that instead and widen it only once we add
support for our twohundredth algorithm or so. That would not only avoid
alignment issues, but also reduce the memory requirements for each
instance of struct object_id by ca. 9%.
Supporting keys with alignment requirements might be useful to spread
the use of crit-bit trees. It can be achieved by using a wider type for
"k" (e.g. uintmax_t), using different types for the members "byte" and
"otherbits" (e.g. uint16_t or uint32_t for each), or by avoiding the use
of flexible arrays like khash.h does.
This patch implements the third option, though, because it has the least
potential for causing side-effects and we're close to the next release.
If one of the other options is implemented later as well to get their
additional benefits we can get rid of the extra copies introduced here.
Reported-by: Andrzej Hunt <andrzej@ahunt.org>
Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This saves 8K per `struct object_directory', meaning it saves
around 800MB in my case involving 100K alternates (half or more
of those alternates are unlikely to hold loose objects).
This is implemented in two parts: a generic, allocation-free
`cbtree' and the `oidtree' wrapper on top of it. The latter
provides allocation using alloc_state as a memory pool to
improve locality and reduce free(3) overhead.
Unlike oid-array, the crit-bit tree does not require sorting.
Performance is bound by the key length, for oidtree that is
fixed at sizeof(struct object_id). There's no need to have
256 oidtrees to mitigate the O(n log n) overhead like we did
with oid-array.
Being a prefix trie, it is natively suited for expanding short
object IDs via prefix-limited iteration in
`find_short_object_filename'.
On my busy workstation, p4205 performance seems to be roughly
unchanged (+/-8%). Startup with 100K total alternates with no
loose objects seems around 10-20% faster on a hot cache.
(800MB in memory savings means more memory for the kernel FS
cache).
The generic cbtree implementation does impose some extra
overhead for oidtree in that it uses memcmp(3) on
"struct object_id" so it wastes cycles comparing 12 extra bytes
on SHA-1 repositories. I've not yet explored reducing this
overhead, but I expect there are many places in our code base
where we'd want to investigate this.
More information on crit-bit trees: https://cr.yp.to/critbit.html
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
