find_pack_entry: replace last_found_pack with MRU cache

Each pack has an index for looking up entries in O(log n) time, but if we have multiple packs, we have to scan through them linearly. This can produce a measurable overhead for some operations. We dealt with this long ago in f7c22cc (always start looking up objects in the last used pack first, 2007-05-30), which keeps what is essentially a 1-element most-recently-used cache. In theory, we should be able to do better by keeping a similar but longer cache, that is the same length as the pack-list itself. Since we now have a convenient generic MRU structure, we can plug it in and measure. Here are the numbers for running p5303 against linux.git: Test HEAD^ HEAD ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5303.3: rev-list (1) 31.56(31.28+0.27) 31.30(31.08+0.20) -0.8% 5303.4: repack (1) 40.62(39.35+2.36) 40.60(39.27+2.44) -0.0% 5303.6: rev-list (50) 31.31(31.06+0.23) 31.23(31.00+0.22) -0.3% 5303.7: repack (50) 58.65(69.12+1.94) 58.27(68.64+2.05) -0.6% 5303.9: rev-list (1000) 38.74(38.40+0.33) 31.87(31.62+0.24) -17.7% 5303.10: repack (1000) 367.20(441.80+4.62) 342.00(414.04+3.72) -6.9% The main numbers of interest here are the rev-list ones (since that is exercising the normal object lookup code path). The single-pack case shouldn't improve at all; the 260ms speedup there is just part of the run-to-run noise (but it's important to note that we didn't make anything worse with the overhead of maintaining our cache). In the 50-pack case, we see similar results. There may be a slight improvement, but it's mostly within the noise. The 1000-pack case does show a big improvement, though. That carries over to the repack case, as well. Even though we haven't touched its pack-search loop yet, it does still do a lot of normal object lookups (e.g., for the internal revision walk), and so improves. As a point of reference, I also ran the 1000-pack test against a version of HEAD^ with the last_found_pack optimization disabled. It takes ~60s, so that gives an indication of how much even the single-element cache is helping. For comparison, here's a smaller repository, git.git: Test HEAD^ HEAD --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5303.3: rev-list (1) 1.56(1.54+0.01) 1.54(1.51+0.02) -1.3% 5303.4: repack (1) 1.84(1.80+0.10) 1.82(1.80+0.09) -1.1% 5303.6: rev-list (50) 1.58(1.55+0.02) 1.59(1.57+0.01) +0.6% 5303.7: repack (50) 2.50(3.18+0.04) 2.50(3.14+0.04) +0.0% 5303.9: rev-list (1000) 2.76(2.71+0.04) 2.24(2.21+0.02) -18.8% 5303.10: repack (1000) 13.21(19.56+0.25) 11.66(18.01+0.21) -11.7% You can see that the percentage improvement is similar. That's because the lookup we are optimizing is roughly O(nr_objects * nr_packs). Since the number of packs is constant in both tests, we'd expect the improvement to be linear in the number of objects. But the whole process is also linear in the number of objects, so the improvement is a constant factor. The exact improvement does also depend on the contents of the packs. In p5303, the extra packs all have 5 first-parent commits in them, which is a reasonable simulation of a pushed-to repository. But it also means that only 250 first-parent commits are in those packs (compared to almost 50,000 total in linux.git), and the rest are in the huge "base" pack. So once we start looking at history in taht big pack, that's where we'll find most everything, and even the 1-element cache gets close to 100% cache hits. You could almost certainly show better numbers with a more pathological case (e.g., distributing the objects more evenly across the packs). But that's simply not that realistic a scenario, so it makes more sense to focus on these numbers. The implementation itself is a straightforward application of the MRU code. We provide an MRU-ordered list of packs that shadows the packed_git list. This is easy to do because we only create and revise the pack list in one place. The "reprepare" code path actually drops the whole MRU and replaces it for simplicity. It would be more efficient to just add new entries, but there's not much point in optimizing here; repreparing happens rarely, and only after doing a lot of other expensive work. The key things to keep optimized are traversal (which is just a normal linked list, albeit with one extra level of indirection over the regular packed_git list), and marking (which is a constant number of pointer assignments, though slightly more than the old last_found_pack was; it doesn't seem to create a measurable slowdown, though). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>