On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 08:10:24PM +, David Turner wrote:
> > Is "-a" or "-A" the key factor? Are there current callers who prefer the
> > current
> > behavior of "possibly duplicate some work, but never report failure" versus
> > "do
> > not duplicate work, but sometimes fail due to lock co
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff King [mailto:p...@peff.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 1:50 PM
> To: David Turner
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org; christian.cou...@gmail.com; mf...@codeaurora.org;
> jacob.kel...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] repack: respect gc
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:43:29PM +, David Turner wrote:
> > A lock can catch the racy cases where both run at the same time. But I
> > think that
> > even:
> >
> > git -c repack.writeBitmaps=true repack -Ad
> > [...wait...]
> > git gc
> >
> > is questionable, because that gc will er
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff King [mailto:p...@peff.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 1:20 PM
> To: David Turner
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org; christian.cou...@gmail.com; mf...@codeaurora.org;
> jacob.kel...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] repack: respect gc
@codeaurora.org;
> > jacob.kel...@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] repack: respect gc.pid lock
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:29:18PM +, David Turner wrote:
> >
> > > We saw this failure in the logs multiple times (with three different
> > >
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:08:14PM +, David Turner wrote:
> On 64-bit systems, I think core.packedGitLimit doesn't make a
> lot of sense. There is plenty of address space. Why not use it?
That's my gut feeling, too. I'd have a slight worry that the OS's paging
behavior may respond different
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff King [mailto:p...@peff.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11:42 PM
> To: David Turner
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org; christian.cou...@gmail.com; mf...@codeaurora.org;
> jacob.kel...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] repack: respect gc
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff King [mailto:p...@peff.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11:42 PM
> To: David Turner
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org; christian.cou...@gmail.com; mf...@codeaurora.org;
> jacob.kel...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] repack: respect gc
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:29:18PM +, David Turner wrote:
> We saw this failure in the logs multiple times (with three different
> shas, while a gc was running):
> April 12, 2017 06:45 -> ERROR -> 'git -c repack.writeBitmaps=true repack -A
> -d --pack-kept-objects' in [repo] failed:
> fatal:
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff King [mailto:p...@peff.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 3:34 PM
> To: David Turner
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org; christian.cou...@gmail.com; mf...@codeaurora.org;
> jacob.kel...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] repack: respect gc
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:27:12PM -0400, David Turner wrote:
> Git gc locks the repository (using a gc.pid file) so that other gcs
> don't run concurrently. Make git repack respect this lock.
>
> Now repack, by default, will refuse to run at the same time as a gc.
> This fixes a concurrency issu
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:27 PM, David Turner wrote:
> Git gc locks the repository (using a gc.pid file) so that other gcs
> don't run concurrently. Make git repack respect this lock.
>
> Now repack, by default, will refuse to run at the same time as a gc.
> This fixes a concurrency issue: a repac
12 matches
Mail list logo
