273 lines
		
	
	
		
			7.8 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			C
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			273 lines
		
	
	
		
			7.8 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			C
		
	
	
	
	
	
| #include "cache.h"
 | |
| #include "sha1-lookup.h"
 | |
| 
 | |
| static uint32_t take2(const unsigned char *sha1)
 | |
| {
 | |
| 	return ((sha1[0] << 8) | sha1[1]);
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| /*
 | |
|  * Conventional binary search loop looks like this:
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *      do {
 | |
|  *              int mi = (lo + hi) / 2;
 | |
|  *              int cmp = "entry pointed at by mi" minus "target";
 | |
|  *              if (!cmp)
 | |
|  *                      return (mi is the wanted one)
 | |
|  *              if (cmp > 0)
 | |
|  *                      hi = mi; "mi is larger than target"
 | |
|  *              else
 | |
|  *                      lo = mi+1; "mi is smaller than target"
 | |
|  *      } while (lo < hi);
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * The invariants are:
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * - When entering the loop, lo points at a slot that is never
 | |
|  *   above the target (it could be at the target), hi points at a
 | |
|  *   slot that is guaranteed to be above the target (it can never
 | |
|  *   be at the target).
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * - We find a point 'mi' between lo and hi (mi could be the same
 | |
|  *   as lo, but never can be the same as hi), and check if it hits
 | |
|  *   the target.  There are three cases:
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *    - if it is a hit, we are happy.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *    - if it is strictly higher than the target, we update hi with
 | |
|  *      it.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *    - if it is strictly lower than the target, we update lo to be
 | |
|  *      one slot after it, because we allow lo to be at the target.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * When choosing 'mi', we do not have to take the "middle" but
 | |
|  * anywhere in between lo and hi, as long as lo <= mi < hi is
 | |
|  * satisfied.  When we somehow know that the distance between the
 | |
|  * target and lo is much shorter than the target and hi, we could
 | |
|  * pick mi that is much closer to lo than the midway.
 | |
|  */
 | |
| /*
 | |
|  * The table should contain "nr" elements.
 | |
|  * The sha1 of element i (between 0 and nr - 1) should be returned
 | |
|  * by "fn(i, table)".
 | |
|  */
 | |
| int sha1_pos(const unsigned char *sha1, void *table, size_t nr,
 | |
| 	     sha1_access_fn fn)
 | |
| {
 | |
| 	size_t hi = nr;
 | |
| 	size_t lo = 0;
 | |
| 	size_t mi = 0;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	if (!nr)
 | |
| 		return -1;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	if (nr != 1) {
 | |
| 		size_t lov, hiv, miv, ofs;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 		for (ofs = 0; ofs < 18; ofs += 2) {
 | |
| 			lov = take2(fn(0, table) + ofs);
 | |
| 			hiv = take2(fn(nr - 1, table) + ofs);
 | |
| 			miv = take2(sha1 + ofs);
 | |
| 			if (miv < lov)
 | |
| 				return -1;
 | |
| 			if (hiv < miv)
 | |
| 				return -1 - nr;
 | |
| 			if (lov != hiv) {
 | |
| 				/*
 | |
| 				 * At this point miv could be equal
 | |
| 				 * to hiv (but sha1 could still be higher);
 | |
| 				 * the invariant of (mi < hi) should be
 | |
| 				 * kept.
 | |
| 				 */
 | |
| 				mi = (nr - 1) * (miv - lov) / (hiv - lov);
 | |
| 				if (lo <= mi && mi < hi)
 | |
| 					break;
 | |
| 				die("BUG: assertion failed in binary search");
 | |
| 			}
 | |
| 		}
 | |
| 		if (18 <= ofs)
 | |
| 			die("cannot happen -- lo and hi are identical");
 | |
| 	}
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	do {
 | |
| 		int cmp;
 | |
| 		cmp = hashcmp(fn(mi, table), sha1);
 | |
| 		if (!cmp)
 | |
| 			return mi;
 | |
| 		if (cmp > 0)
 | |
| 			hi = mi;
 | |
| 		else
 | |
| 			lo = mi + 1;
 | |
| 		mi = (hi + lo) / 2;
 | |
| 	} while (lo < hi);
 | |
| 	return -lo-1;
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| /*
 | |
|  * Conventional binary search loop looks like this:
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *	unsigned lo, hi;
 | |
|  *      do {
 | |
|  *              unsigned mi = (lo + hi) / 2;
 | |
|  *              int cmp = "entry pointed at by mi" minus "target";
 | |
|  *              if (!cmp)
 | |
|  *                      return (mi is the wanted one)
 | |
|  *              if (cmp > 0)
 | |
|  *                      hi = mi; "mi is larger than target"
 | |
|  *              else
 | |
|  *                      lo = mi+1; "mi is smaller than target"
 | |
|  *      } while (lo < hi);
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * The invariants are:
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * - When entering the loop, lo points at a slot that is never
 | |
|  *   above the target (it could be at the target), hi points at a
 | |
|  *   slot that is guaranteed to be above the target (it can never
 | |
|  *   be at the target).
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * - We find a point 'mi' between lo and hi (mi could be the same
 | |
|  *   as lo, but never can be as same as hi), and check if it hits
 | |
|  *   the target.  There are three cases:
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *    - if it is a hit, we are happy.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *    - if it is strictly higher than the target, we set it to hi,
 | |
|  *      and repeat the search.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *    - if it is strictly lower than the target, we update lo to
 | |
|  *      one slot after it, because we allow lo to be at the target.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *   If the loop exits, there is no matching entry.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * When choosing 'mi', we do not have to take the "middle" but
 | |
|  * anywhere in between lo and hi, as long as lo <= mi < hi is
 | |
|  * satisfied.  When we somehow know that the distance between the
 | |
|  * target and lo is much shorter than the target and hi, we could
 | |
|  * pick mi that is much closer to lo than the midway.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * Now, we can take advantage of the fact that SHA-1 is a good hash
 | |
|  * function, and as long as there are enough entries in the table, we
 | |
|  * can expect uniform distribution.  An entry that begins with for
 | |
|  * example "deadbeef..." is much likely to appear much later than in
 | |
|  * the midway of the table.  It can reasonably be expected to be near
 | |
|  * 87% (222/256) from the top of the table.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * However, we do not want to pick "mi" too precisely.  If the entry at
 | |
|  * the 87% in the above example turns out to be higher than the target
 | |
|  * we are looking for, we would end up narrowing the search space down
 | |
|  * only by 13%, instead of 50% we would get if we did a simple binary
 | |
|  * search.  So we would want to hedge our bets by being less aggressive.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * The table at "table" holds at least "nr" entries of "elem_size"
 | |
|  * bytes each.  Each entry has the SHA-1 key at "key_offset".  The
 | |
|  * table is sorted by the SHA-1 key of the entries.  The caller wants
 | |
|  * to find the entry with "key", and knows that the entry at "lo" is
 | |
|  * not higher than the entry it is looking for, and that the entry at
 | |
|  * "hi" is higher than the entry it is looking for.
 | |
|  */
 | |
| int sha1_entry_pos(const void *table,
 | |
| 		   size_t elem_size,
 | |
| 		   size_t key_offset,
 | |
| 		   unsigned lo, unsigned hi, unsigned nr,
 | |
| 		   const unsigned char *key)
 | |
| {
 | |
| 	const unsigned char *base = table;
 | |
| 	const unsigned char *hi_key, *lo_key;
 | |
| 	unsigned ofs_0;
 | |
| 	static int debug_lookup = -1;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	if (debug_lookup < 0)
 | |
| 		debug_lookup = !!getenv("GIT_DEBUG_LOOKUP");
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	if (!nr || lo >= hi)
 | |
| 		return -1;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	if (nr == hi)
 | |
| 		hi_key = NULL;
 | |
| 	else
 | |
| 		hi_key = base + elem_size * hi + key_offset;
 | |
| 	lo_key = base + elem_size * lo + key_offset;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	ofs_0 = 0;
 | |
| 	do {
 | |
| 		int cmp;
 | |
| 		unsigned ofs, mi, range;
 | |
| 		unsigned lov, hiv, kyv;
 | |
| 		const unsigned char *mi_key;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 		range = hi - lo;
 | |
| 		if (hi_key) {
 | |
| 			for (ofs = ofs_0; ofs < 20; ofs++)
 | |
| 				if (lo_key[ofs] != hi_key[ofs])
 | |
| 					break;
 | |
| 			ofs_0 = ofs;
 | |
| 			/*
 | |
| 			 * byte 0 thru (ofs-1) are the same between
 | |
| 			 * lo and hi; ofs is the first byte that is
 | |
| 			 * different.
 | |
| 			 */
 | |
| 			hiv = hi_key[ofs_0];
 | |
| 			if (ofs_0 < 19)
 | |
| 				hiv = (hiv << 8) | hi_key[ofs_0+1];
 | |
| 		} else {
 | |
| 			hiv = 256;
 | |
| 			if (ofs_0 < 19)
 | |
| 				hiv <<= 8;
 | |
| 		}
 | |
| 		lov = lo_key[ofs_0];
 | |
| 		kyv = key[ofs_0];
 | |
| 		if (ofs_0 < 19) {
 | |
| 			lov = (lov << 8) | lo_key[ofs_0+1];
 | |
| 			kyv = (kyv << 8) | key[ofs_0+1];
 | |
| 		}
 | |
| 		assert(lov < hiv);
 | |
| 
 | |
| 		if (kyv < lov)
 | |
| 			return -1 - lo;
 | |
| 		if (hiv < kyv)
 | |
| 			return -1 - hi;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 		/*
 | |
| 		 * Even if we know the target is much closer to 'hi'
 | |
| 		 * than 'lo', if we pick too precisely and overshoot
 | |
| 		 * (e.g. when we know 'mi' is closer to 'hi' than to
 | |
| 		 * 'lo', pick 'mi' that is higher than the target), we
 | |
| 		 * end up narrowing the search space by a smaller
 | |
| 		 * amount (i.e. the distance between 'mi' and 'hi')
 | |
| 		 * than what we would have (i.e. about half of 'lo'
 | |
| 		 * and 'hi').  Hedge our bets to pick 'mi' less
 | |
| 		 * aggressively, i.e. make 'mi' a bit closer to the
 | |
| 		 * middle than we would otherwise pick.
 | |
| 		 */
 | |
| 		kyv = (kyv * 6 + lov + hiv) / 8;
 | |
| 		if (lov < hiv - 1) {
 | |
| 			if (kyv == lov)
 | |
| 				kyv++;
 | |
| 			else if (kyv == hiv)
 | |
| 				kyv--;
 | |
| 		}
 | |
| 		mi = (range - 1) * (kyv - lov) / (hiv - lov) + lo;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 		if (debug_lookup) {
 | |
| 			printf("lo %u hi %u rg %u mi %u ", lo, hi, range, mi);
 | |
| 			printf("ofs %u lov %x, hiv %x, kyv %x\n",
 | |
| 			       ofs_0, lov, hiv, kyv);
 | |
| 		}
 | |
| 		if (!(lo <= mi && mi < hi))
 | |
| 			die("assertion failure lo %u mi %u hi %u %s",
 | |
| 			    lo, mi, hi, sha1_to_hex(key));
 | |
| 
 | |
| 		mi_key = base + elem_size * mi + key_offset;
 | |
| 		cmp = memcmp(mi_key + ofs_0, key + ofs_0, 20 - ofs_0);
 | |
| 		if (!cmp)
 | |
| 			return mi;
 | |
| 		if (cmp > 0) {
 | |
| 			hi = mi;
 | |
| 			hi_key = mi_key;
 | |
| 		} else {
 | |
| 			lo = mi + 1;
 | |
| 			lo_key = mi_key + elem_size;
 | |
| 		}
 | |
| 	} while (lo < hi);
 | |
| 	return -lo-1;
 | |
| }
 | 
