On 10/9/2019 7:44 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> Instead, recompute ancestry if we ever need to reclaim memory.

I find this message lacking in important details:

1. Where do we recompute ancestry?
2. What are the performance implications of this change?
3. Why is it important that you construct a stack of deltas in 
prune_base_data()?

> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathanta...@google.com>
> ---
>  builtin/index-pack.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/builtin/index-pack.c b/builtin/index-pack.c
> index 99f6e2957f..35f7f9e52b 100644
> --- a/builtin/index-pack.c
> +++ b/builtin/index-pack.c
> @@ -34,7 +34,6 @@ struct object_stat {
>  
>  struct base_data {
>       struct base_data *base;
> -     struct base_data *child;
>       struct object_entry *obj;
>       void *data;
>       unsigned long size;
> @@ -44,7 +43,6 @@ struct base_data {
>  
>  struct thread_local {
>       pthread_t thread;
> -     struct base_data *base_cache;
>       size_t base_cache_used;
>       int pack_fd;
>  };
> @@ -380,27 +378,37 @@ static void free_base_data(struct base_data *c)
>       }
>  }
>  
> -static void prune_base_data(struct base_data *retain)
> +static void prune_base_data(struct base_data *youngest_child)
>  {
>       struct base_data *b;
>       struct thread_local *data = get_thread_data();
> -     for (b = data->base_cache;
> -          data->base_cache_used > delta_base_cache_limit && b;
> -          b = b->child) {
> -             if (b->data && b != retain)
> -                     free_base_data(b);
> +     struct base_data **ancestry = NULL;
> +     int nr = 0, alloc = 0;
> +     int i;
> +
> +     if (data->base_cache_used <= delta_base_cache_limit)
> +             return;
> +
> +     /*
> +      * Free all ancestors of youngest_child until we have enough space,
> +      * starting with the oldest. (We cannot free youngest_child itself.)
> +      */
> +     for (b = youngest_child->base; b != NULL; b = b->base) {
> +             ALLOC_GROW(ancestry, nr + 1, alloc);
> +             ancestry[nr++] = b;
> +     }
> +     for (i = nr - 1;
> +          i >= 0 && data->base_cache_used > delta_base_cache_limit;
> +          i--) {
> +             if (ancestry[i]->data)
> +                     free_base_data(ancestry[i]);
>       }
> +     free(ancestry);
>  }
>  
>  static void link_base_data(struct base_data *base, struct base_data *c)
>  {
> -     if (base)
> -             base->child = c;
> -     else
> -             get_thread_data()->base_cache = c;
> -
>       c->base = base;
> -     c->child = NULL;
>       if (c->data)
>               get_thread_data()->base_cache_used += c->size;
>       prune_base_data(c);
> @@ -408,11 +416,6 @@ static void link_base_data(struct base_data *base, 
> struct base_data *c)
>  
>  static void unlink_base_data(struct base_data *c)
>  {
> -     struct base_data *base = c->base;
> -     if (base)
> -             base->child = NULL;
> -     else
> -             get_thread_data()->base_cache = NULL;
>       free_base_data(c);
>  }

Seems like this method should be removed and all callers should
call free_base_data() instead.

-Stolee

Reply via email to