Re: [PATCH v5 09/15] index-helper: use watchman to avoid refreshing index with lstat()
From: David Turner <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-16 02:18:52
On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 07:15 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
Continuing my comment from the --use-watchman patch about watchman not being supported... On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:28 AM, David Turner < dturner@twopensource.com> wrote:quoted
+static int poke_and_wait_for_reply(int fd) +{ + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT; + struct strbuf reply = STRBUF_INIT; + int ret = -1; + fd_set fds; + struct timeval timeout; + + timeout.tv_usec = 0; + timeout.tv_sec = 1; + + if (fd < 0) + return -1; + + strbuf_addf(&buf, "poke %d", getpid()); + if (write_in_full(fd, buf.buf, buf.len + 1) != buf.len + 1) + goto done_poke; + + /* Now wait for a reply */ + FD_ZERO(&fds); + FD_SET(fd, &fds); + if (select(fd + 1, &fds, NULL, NULL, &timeout) == 0) + /* No reply, giving up */ + goto done_poke; + + if (strbuf_getwholeline_fd(&reply, fd, 0)) + goto done_poke; + + if (!starts_with(reply.buf, "OK")) + goto done_poke;... while we could simply check USE_WATCHMAN macro and reject in update-index, a better solution is sending "poke %d watchman" and returning "OK watchman" (vs "OK") when watchman is supported and active. If the user already requests watchman and index-helper returns just "OK" then we can warn the user the reason of possible performance degradation. It's related to the error reporting, but I don't think you can send straight errors over unix socket. It's possible but it's a bit more complicated.
Do you mean that we should do this here? Or in update-index - -watchman? If the former, I agree. If the latter, I'm not sure; maybe you'll be setting up your index before you've started the index helper?
quoted
+static void refresh_by_watchman(struct index_state *istate) +{ + void *shm = NULL; + int length; + int i; + struct stat st; + int fd = -1; + const char *path = git_path("shm-watchman-%s-%"PRIuMAX, + sha1_to_hex(istate->sha1), + (uintmax_t)getpid()); + + fd = open(path, O_RDONLY); + if (fd < 0) + return; + + /* + * This watchman data is just for us -- no need to keep it + * around once we've got it open. + */ + unlink(path);This will not play well when multiple processes read and refresh the index at the same time.
Multiple processes will have different pids, right? And the pid is included in the filename. Am I missing something?
This is really extra. But if we know in advance that git does not need refresh(), then we should be able to tell index-helper not to waste cycles contacting watchman and preparing shm-watchman-%s-%d (the poke line gets more parameters). Either that, or we decouple watchman requests from read_cache() requests. Only when refresh_index() is called that we send something to request shm- watchman-%s-%d. The same for read_directory() (i.e. untracked cache stuff). Hmm?
It's true that we could decouple watchman requests. I'll look and see if that's reasonable.
Now that I think of it, with watchman backing us, we probably should just do nothing in update_index_if_able() (or write_locked_index() when we know only stat info is changed) when watchman is active. The purpose of update_index_if_able() is to avoid costly refresh, but we can already avoid that with watchman. And updating big index files is always costly (even though it should cost less with split-index).
That sounds like a change we could make in a separate series. It's not a bad idea, but if our goal is to get the basic version out, we should start there.
Of course this can only be done if watchman (inotify to be precise) can cover whole worktree. I'm not sure how watchman behaves when there's not enough inotify resource to cover full worktree.
It will detect this case and will either manually recrawl (in the event of a max_queued_events overflow) or return an error (in the event of too many watched directories).