On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 06:29:00PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > I haven't read all of the old code, but if I understand correctly this > is your new algorithm: > > 1. Walk from all references etc., marking reachable objects. > > 2. Iterate over *all* objects, in no particular order, skipping the > objects that are already known to be reachable. Use any unreachable > object that has a recent mtime as a tip for a second traversal that > marks all of its references as "to-keep". > > 3. Iterate over any objects that are not marked "to-keep". (I assume > that this iteration is in no particular order.) For each object: > > * [Presumably] verify that its mtime is still "old" > * If so, prune the object
Yes, that's more or less accurate. The iteration is in readdir() order on the filesystem. We do verify that the mtime is still "old" in the final iteration, but that is mostly because the existing check was left in. In theory any recent objects would have been caught in step 2 and marked as "to-keep" already. Anything we find in step 3 would have to have been racily created or freshened. > I see some problems with this. > > * The one that you mentioned in your cover letter, namely that prune's > final mtime check is not atomic with the object deletion. I agree > that this race is so much shorter than the others that we can accept > a solution that doesn't eliminate it, so let's forget about this one. Right, I don't see an easy way around this. > * If the final mtime check fails, then the object is recognized as new > and not pruned. But does that prevent its referents from being pruned? > > * When this situation is encountered, you would have to start another > object traversal starting at the "renewed" object to mark its > referents "to-keep". I don't see that you do this. Another, much > less attractive alternative would be to abort the prune operation > if this situation arises. But even if you do one of these... > > * ...assuming the iteration in step 3 is in no defined order, a > referent might *already* have been pruned before you notice the > "renewed" object. > > So although your changes are a big improvement, it seems to me that they > still leave a race with a window approximately as long as the time it > takes to scan and prune the unreachable objects. Correct. There is a delay between marking objects and deleting them. This goes for both the existing reachability checks and the new "recent reachability" check. As noted above, if we see a fresh object in the final check, then we know that it was newly freshened (or created). We could then do an additional traversal with it as the tip, to get a slightly more accurate view of the world. The obvious problem as you note is that we may already have deleted its referents. But let's leave that aside for a moment. But even if we fix that problem, I don't think traversing again can eliminate the race. Another process may be freshening or creating objects after we have processed them (or their containing directories). So you can catch _some_ cases by re-traversing, but there will always be cases where we delete an object that has just now become recent (or reachable, for that matter, if somebody updates the refs). The obvious solution is to have some atomic view of the object and ref namespace (i.e., a global write lock that says "I'm pruning, nobody write"). But that sucks for obvious reasons. I feel like there must be some more clever solution, but it eludes me. Surely this is something database people solved 30 years ago. :) > I think that the only way to get rid of that race is to delete objects > in parent-to-child order; in other words, *only prune an object after > all objects that refer to it have been pruned*. This could be done by > maintaining reference counts of the to-be-pruned objects and only > deleting an object once its reference count is zero. Yes, if you are going to traverse again, you would want to delete in parent-child order. I'm not convinced that traversing again is worth it; it's trying to shorten the window, but it can't eliminate it. And my goal here was never to eliminate the race. It was to keep races to "simultaneous reference and prune is a problem", and not "ongoing unbounded operations and simultaneous prune are a problem". And I do not claim to eliminate the possibility of referents going missing; only to try to close some obvious and easy holes where it happens. > Let's take the simpler case first. Suppose I run the following command > between steps 1 and 3: > > git update-ref refs/heads/newbranch $COMMIT > > , where $COMMIT is a previously-unreachable object. This doesn't affect > the mtime of $COMMIT, does it? So how does prune know that it shouldn't > delete $COMMIT? > > -> So ISTM that updating a reference (or any other traversal starting > point, like the index) must freshen the mtime of any object newly > referred to. _If_ the deletion of the object and the checking of its mtime were atomic, that would be useful to do. But it's not. Before my patch, you have one way of "saving" the object (and its referents): making it reachable from a ref. After my patch, you have the additional option of updating its mtime. But why bother with the mtime? You can just make it reachable by updating the ref. Both are racy, but we cannot help that, so one is as good as the other. > A more complicated case: suppose I create a new $COMMIT referring to an > old $TREE during step 2, *after* prune has scanned the directory that > now contains $COMMIT. (I.e., the scan in step 2 never notices $COMMIT.) > Then I create a new reference pointing at $COMMIT. (I.e., the scan in > step 1 never noticed that the reference exists.) None of this affects > the mtime of $TREE, does it? So how does prune know that it mustn't > prune $TREE? It doesn't, and you are screwed. :) You could freshen the referents here, but you are still racy. Just as you might miss the creation of $COMMIT, you might miss the freshening of $TREE and delete it. Making the mtimes race-free requires an atomic check-timestamp-and-delete. And without that, I'm not sure that shortening the race from 50 system calls to 3 system calls is worth the additional complexity. If we had such an atomic operation, even on only a subset of systems, it might be worth it. But I do not know of any filesystem or system call that can do so. > I hope I understood that all correctly... I think your analysis is all correct. The open question is whether it's worth trying to shrink the last bits of raciness or not (or even whether there is a clever way of eliminating them that I haven't considered). -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
