On 27 May 2015 at 12:49, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrm...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote:
>>
>> It seems directory cache checked twice in function
>> svn_fs_fs__rep_contents_dir_entry:
>> [[[
>> svn_error_t *
>> svn_fs_fs__rep_contents_dir_entry(svn_fs_dirent_t **dirent,
>> svn_fs_t *fs,
>> node_revision_t *noderev,
>> const char *name,
>> apr_pool_t *result_pool,
>> apr_pool_t *scratch_pool)
>> {
>> svn_boolean_t found = FALSE;
>>
>> /* find the cache we may use */
>> pair_cache_key_t pair_key = { 0 };
>> const void *key;
>> svn_cache__t *cache = locate_dir_cache(fs, &key, &pair_key, noderev,
>> scratch_pool);
>> if (cache)
>> {
>> [...]
>> SVN_ERR(svn_cache__get_partial((void **)dirent,
>> &found,
>> cache,
>> key,
>> svn_fs_fs__extract_dir_entry,
>> &baton,
>> result_pool));
>> }
>>
>> /* fetch data from disk if we did not find it in the cache */
>> if (! found)
>> {
>> [...]
>>
>> /* read the dir from the file system. It will probably be put it
>> into the cache for faster lookup in future calls. */
>> SVN_ERR(svn_fs_fs__rep_contents_dir(&entries, fs, noderev,
>> scratch_pool, scratch_pool));
>>
>> [...]
>> }
>>
>> return SVN_NO_ERROR;
>> }
>> ]]]
>>
>> And svn_fs_fs__rep_contents_dir() functions checks the dir cache again.
>>
>> Is my analysis correct or I missed something important?
>
>
> Your analysis is correct and the code is slightly less efficient
> that it could be. Feel free to add e.g. a "bypass_cache_lookup"
> flag to the svn_fs_fs__rep_contents_dir() signature.
>
Thanks for confirming the issue. I'll fix it then.
> However, the actual gains from this should be minimal because
> the failed lookup is easily dwarfed by the directory parsing time.
> Do you have a specific workload where the double lookup becomes
> more noticeable?
>
No, I don't have any specific workloads. I've noticed it just by
reading code around.
--
Ivan Zhakov
