From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks•im>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
Cc: git@vger•kernel.org, Jeff King <peff@peff•net>,
Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian•com>,
Waleed Khan <me@waleedkhan•name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] refs: skip hooks when deleting uncovered packed refs
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 14:18:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YdwyFmqs0MhU0wA6@ncase> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1r1j3s0v.fsf@gitster.g>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5588 bytes --]
On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 06:01:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks•im> writes:
>
> > When deleting refs from the loose-files refs backend, then we need to be
> > careful to also delete the same ref from the packed refs backend, if it
> > exists. If we don't, then deleting the loose ref would "uncover" the
> > packed ref. We thus always have to queue up deletions of refs for both
> > the loose and the packed refs backend. This is done in two separate
> > transactions, where the end result is that the reference-transaction
> > hook is executed twice for the deleted refs.
> >
> > This behaviour is quite misleading: it's exposing implementation details
> > of how the files backend works to the user, in contrast to the logical
> > updates that we'd really want to expose via the hook. Worse yet, whether
> > the hook gets executed once or twice depends on how well-packed the
> > repository is: if the ref only exists as a loose ref, then we execute it
> > once, otherwise if it is also packed then we execute it twice.
>
> If the ref only exists as a packed ref, what happens? ...
>
> > Fix this behaviour and don't execute the reference-transaction hook at
> > all when refs in the packed-refs backend if it's driven by the files
> > backend.
>
> ... We try to remove from the loose backend, which would say "nah,
> it did not exist in my store". I am not sure if it should execute
> the delete hook in such a case for the ref. But if it does not, not
> running the hook in the ref transaction for packed backend driven by
> the loose backend would mean nobody notifies the deletion of the
> ref, no?
This is shown in the test I've added, "deleting packed ref calls hook
once". We create a new reference and pack it such that it doesn't exist
as loose ref anymore, but only as a packed one. Updating that ref
would've caused us to execute the hook twice before, once via the
packed-backend and once via the loose-backend. With my fix we only
execute it once via the loose-backend, even if it doesn't currently know
it. This works because the loose-backend has to create a lock for the
nonexistent reference such that no concurrent call touches the same ref.
> To me, it seems that the only case this strategy would work
> correctly is when the files backend calls deletion hook for a
> request to delete nonexistent ref, which by itself sounds like a
> problem.
It does so only if the ref exists in either the loose or packed backend
though. If trying to update a ref which exists in neither of those, then
the reference transaction would fail with an "unable to resolve
reference" error in `lock_raw_ref()`.
So this should behave as expected: deleting a packed ref calls the hook
once, deleting a nonexistent ref fails and doesn't call the hook at all.
Patrick
> > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks•im>
> > ---
> > refs/files-backend.c | 9 ++++++---
> > t/t1416-ref-transaction-hooks.sh | 7 +------
> > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/refs/files-backend.c b/refs/files-backend.c
> > index 3c0f3027fe..9a20cb8fa8 100644
> > --- a/refs/files-backend.c
> > +++ b/refs/files-backend.c
> > @@ -1261,7 +1261,8 @@ static int files_delete_refs(struct ref_store *ref_store, const char *msg,
> > if (packed_refs_lock(refs->packed_ref_store, 0, &err))
> > goto error;
> >
> > - transaction = ref_store_transaction_begin(refs->packed_ref_store, 0, &err);
> > + transaction = ref_store_transaction_begin(refs->packed_ref_store,
> > + REF_TRANSACTION_SKIP_HOOK, &err);
> > if (!transaction)
> > goto error;
> >
> > @@ -2775,7 +2776,8 @@ static int files_transaction_prepare(struct ref_store *ref_store,
> > */
> > if (!packed_transaction) {
> > packed_transaction = ref_store_transaction_begin(
> > - refs->packed_ref_store, 0, err);
> > + refs->packed_ref_store,
> > + REF_TRANSACTION_SKIP_HOOK, err);
> > if (!packed_transaction) {
> > ret = TRANSACTION_GENERIC_ERROR;
> > goto cleanup;
> > @@ -3046,7 +3048,8 @@ static int files_initial_transaction_commit(struct ref_store *ref_store,
> > &affected_refnames))
> > BUG("initial ref transaction called with existing refs");
> >
> > - packed_transaction = ref_store_transaction_begin(refs->packed_ref_store, 0, err);
> > + packed_transaction = ref_store_transaction_begin(refs->packed_ref_store,
> > + REF_TRANSACTION_SKIP_HOOK, err);
> > if (!packed_transaction) {
> > ret = TRANSACTION_GENERIC_ERROR;
> > goto cleanup;
> > diff --git a/t/t1416-ref-transaction-hooks.sh b/t/t1416-ref-transaction-hooks.sh
> > index f9d3d5213f..4e1e84a91f 100755
> > --- a/t/t1416-ref-transaction-hooks.sh
> > +++ b/t/t1416-ref-transaction-hooks.sh
> > @@ -175,16 +175,11 @@ test_expect_success 'deleting packed ref calls hook once' '
> > git update-ref -d refs/heads/to-be-deleted $POST_OID &&
> >
> > # We only expect a single hook invocation, which is the logical
> > - # deletion. But currently, we see two interleaving transactions, once
> > - # for deleting the loose refs and once for deleting the packed ref.
> > + # deletion.
> > cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> > - prepared
> > - $ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID refs/heads/to-be-deleted
> > prepared
> > $POST_OID $ZERO_OID refs/heads/to-be-deleted
> > committed
> > - $ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID refs/heads/to-be-deleted
> > - committed
> > $POST_OID $ZERO_OID refs/heads/to-be-deleted
> > EOF
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-10 13:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-07 10:55 [PATCH 0/6] refs: excessive hook execution with packed refs Patrick Steinhardt
2021-12-07 10:55 ` [PATCH 1/6] refs: open-code deletion of " Patrick Steinhardt
2021-12-07 10:56 ` [PATCH 2/6] refs: allow passing flags when beginning transactions Patrick Steinhardt
2021-12-07 10:56 ` [PATCH 3/6] refs: allow skipping the reference-transaction hook Patrick Steinhardt
2021-12-07 10:56 ` [PATCH 4/6] refs: demonstrate excessive execution of " Patrick Steinhardt
2021-12-07 10:56 ` [PATCH 5/6] refs: do not execute reference-transaction hook on packing refs Patrick Steinhardt
2021-12-07 10:56 ` [PATCH 6/6] refs: skip hooks when deleting uncovered packed refs Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-07 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] refs: excessive hook execution with " Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-07 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] refs: open-code deletion of " Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-08 0:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-08 1:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-13 0:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-07 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] refs: allow passing flags when beginning transactions Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-08 1:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-07 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] refs: allow skipping the reference-transaction hook Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-07 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] refs: demonstrate excessive execution of " Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-08 1:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-10 12:54 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-08 5:43 ` Eric Sunshine
2022-01-07 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] refs: do not execute reference-transaction hook on packing refs Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-07 11:55 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] refs: skip hooks when deleting uncovered packed refs Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-08 2:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-10 13:18 ` Patrick Steinhardt [this message]
2022-01-10 18:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-07 22:17 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] refs: excessive hook execution with " Junio C Hamano
2022-01-13 18:24 ` Han-Wen Nienhuys
2022-01-17 7:18 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-17 11:37 ` Han-Wen Nienhuys
2022-01-24 7:13 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 6:11 ` [PATCH v3 " Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 6:11 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] refs: extract packed_refs_delete_refs() to allow control of transaction Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 12:43 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-17 7:36 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 6:11 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] refs: allow passing flags when beginning transactions Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 6:11 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] refs: allow skipping the reference-transaction hook Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 13:34 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-17 8:03 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 6:11 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] refs: demonstrate excessive execution of " Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 6:11 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] refs: do not execute reference-transaction hook on packing refs Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 13:00 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-17 7:44 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 6:11 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] refs: skip hooks when deleting uncovered packed refs Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-13 13:04 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-01-17 7:56 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-17 8:12 ` [PATCH v4 0/6] refs: excessive hook execution with " Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-17 8:12 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] refs: extract packed_refs_delete_refs() to allow control of transaction Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-17 8:12 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] refs: allow passing flags when beginning transactions Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-17 8:12 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] refs: allow skipping the reference-transaction hook Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-17 8:12 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] refs: demonstrate excessive execution of " Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-17 8:12 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] refs: do not execute reference-transaction hook on packing refs Patrick Steinhardt
2022-01-17 8:12 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] refs: skip hooks when deleting uncovered packed refs Patrick Steinhardt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YdwyFmqs0MhU0wA6@ncase \
--to=ps@pks$(echo .)im \
--cc=bturner@atlassian$(echo .)com \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=me@waleedkhan$(echo .)name \
--cc=peff@peff$(echo .)net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox