Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> [Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:31:19 -0800] rev 30443
manifest: move manifestctx creation into manifestlog.get()
Most manifestctx creation already happened in manifestlog.get(), but there was
one spot in the manifestctx class itself that created an instance manually. This
patch makes that one instance go through the manifestlog. This means extensions
can just wrap manifestlog.get() and it will cover all manifestctx creations. It
also means this code path now hits the manifestlog cache.
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:10:07 -0800] rev 30442
util: implement zstd compression engine
Now that zstd is vendored and being built (in some configurations), we
can implement a compression engine for zstd!
The zstd engine is a little different from existing engines. Because
it may not always be present, we have to defer load the module in case
importing it fails. We facilitate this via a cached property that holds
a reference to the module or None. The "available" method is
implemented to reflect reality.
The zstd engine declares its ability to handle bundles using the
"zstd" human name and the "ZS" internal name. The latter was chosen
because internal names are 2 characters (by only convention I think)
and "ZS" seems reasonable.
The engine, like others, supports specifying the compression level.
However, there are no consumers of this API that yet pass in that
argument. I have plans to change that, so stay tuned.
Since all we need to do to support bundle generation with a new
compression engine is implement and register the compression engine,
bundle generation with zstd "just works!" Tests demonstrating this
have been added.
How does performance of zstd for bundle generation compare? On the
mozilla-unified repo, `hg bundle --all -t <engine>-v2` yields the
following on my i7-6700K on Linux:
engine CPU time bundle size vs orig size throughput
none 97.0s 4,054,405,584 100.0% 41.8 MB/s
bzip2 (l=9) 393.6s 975,343,098 24.0% 10.3 MB/s
gzip (l=6) 184.0s 1,140,533,074 28.1% 22.0 MB/s
zstd (l=1) 108.2s 1,119,434,718 27.6% 37.5 MB/s
zstd (l=2) 111.3s 1,078,328,002 26.6% 36.4 MB/s
zstd (l=3) 113.7s 1,011,823,727 25.0% 35.7 MB/s
zstd (l=4) 116.0s 1,008,965,888 24.9% 35.0 MB/s
zstd (l=5) 121.0s 977,203,148 24.1% 33.5 MB/s
zstd (l=6) 131.7s 927,360,198 22.9% 30.8 MB/s
zstd (l=7) 139.0s 912,808,505 22.5% 29.2 MB/s
zstd (l=12) 198.1s 854,527,714 21.1% 20.5 MB/s
zstd (l=18) 681.6s 789,750,690 19.5% 5.9 MB/s
On compression, zstd for bundle generation delivers:
* better compression than gzip with significantly less CPU utilization
* better than bzip2 compression ratios while still being significantly
faster than gzip
* ability to aggressively tune compression level to achieve
significantly smaller bundles
That last point is important. With clone bundles, a server can
pre-generate a bundle file, upload it to a static file server, and
redirect clients to transparently download it during clone. The server
could choose to produce a zstd bundle with the highest compression
settings possible. This would take a very long time - a magnitude
longer than a typical zstd bundle generation - but the result would
be hundreds of megabytes smaller! For the clone volume we do at
Mozilla, this could translate to petabytes of bandwidth savings
per year and faster clones (due to smaller transfer size).
I don't have detailed numbers to report on decompression. However,
zstd decompression is fast: >1 GB/s output throughput on this machine,
even through the Python bindings. And it can do that regardless of the
compression level of the input. By the time you have enough data to
worry about overhead of decompression, you have plenty of other things
to worry about performance wise.
zstd is wins all around. I can't wait to implement support for it
on the wire protocol and in revlogs.
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:38:41 -0800] rev 30441
hghave: add check for zstd support
Not all configurations will support zstd. Add a check so we can
conditionalize tests.
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:34:15 -0800] rev 30440
exchange: obtain compression engines from the registrar
util.compengines has knowledge of all registered compression engines
and the metadata that associates them with various bundle types.
This patch removes the now redundant declaration of this metadata from
exchange.py and obtains it from the new source.
The effect of this patch is that once a new compression engine is
registered with util.compengines, `hg bundle -t <engine>` will just
work.
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:29:01 -0800] rev 30439
bundle2: equate 'UN' with no compression
An upcoming patch will change the "alg" argument passed to this
function from None to "UN" when no compression is wanted.
The existing implementation of bundle2 does not set a "Compression"
parameter if no compression is used. In theory, setting
"Compression=UN" should work. But I haven't audited the code to see if
all client versions supporting bundle2 will accept this.
Rather than take the risk, avoid the BC breakage and treat "UN"
the same as None.
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:15:02 -0800] rev 30438
util: check for compression engine availability before returning
If a requested compression engine is registered but not available,
requesting it will now abort.
To be honest, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate mechanism
for handling optional compression engines. I won't know until
all uses of compression (bundles, wire protocol, revlogs, etc)
are using the new API and zstd (our planned optional engine)
is implemented. So this API could change.
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:03:48 -0800] rev 30437
util: expose an "available" API on compression engines
When the zstd compression engine is introduced, it won't work in all
installations, namely pure Python installs. So, we need a mechanism to
declare whether a compression engine is available. We don't want to
conditionally register the compression engine because it is sometimes
useful to know when a compression engine name or encountered data is
valid but just not available versus unknown.
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:26:35 -0800] rev 30436
setup: compile zstd C extension
Now that zstd and python-zstandard are vendored, we can start compiling
them as part of the install.
python-zstandard provides a self-contained Python function that returns
a distutils.extension.Extension, so it is really easy to add zstd
to our setup.py without having to worry about defining source files,
include paths, etc. The function even allows specifying the module
name the extension should be compiled as. This conveniently allows us
to compile the module into the "mercurial" package so "our" version
won't collide with a version installed under the canonical "zstd"
module name.
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:15:58 -0800] rev 30435
zstd: vendor python-zstandard 0.5.0
As the commit message for the previous changeset says, we wish
for zstd to be a 1st class citizen in Mercurial. To make that
happen, we need to enable Python to talk to the zstd C API. And
that requires bindings.
This commit vendors a copy of existing Python bindings. Why do we
need to vendor? As the commit message of the previous commit says,
relying on systems in the wild to have the bindings or zstd present
is a losing proposition. By distributing the zstd and bindings with
Mercurial, we significantly increase our chances that zstd will
work. Since zstd will deliver a better end-user experience by
achieving better performance, this benefits our users. Another
reason is that the Python bindings still aren't stable and the
API is somewhat fluid. While Mercurial could be coded to target
multiple versions of the Python bindings, it is safer to bundle
an explicit, known working version.
The added Python bindings are mostly a fully-featured interface
to the zstd C API. They allow one-shot operations, streaming,
reading and writing from objects implements the file object
protocol, dictionary compression, control over low-level compression
parameters, and more. The Python bindings work on Python 2.6,
2.7, and 3.3+ and have been tested on Linux and Windows. There are
CFFI bindings, but they are lacking compared to the C extension.
Upstream work will be needed before we can support zstd with PyPy.
But it will be possible.
The files added in this commit come from Git commit
e637c1b214d5f869cf8116c550dcae23ec13b677 from
https://github.com/indygreg/python-zstandard and are added without
modifications. Some files from the upstream repository have been
omitted, namely files related to continuous integration.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm the maintainer of the
"python-zstandard" project and have authored 100% of the code
added in this commit. Unfortunately, the Python bindings have
not been formally code reviewed by anyone. While I've tested
much of the code thoroughly (I even have tests that fuzz APIs),
there's a good chance there are bugs, memory leaks, not well
thought out APIs, etc. If someone wants to review the code and
send feedback to the GitHub project, it would be greatly
appreciated.
Despite my involvement with both projects, my opinions of code
style differ from Mercurial's. The code in this commit introduces
numerous code style violations in Mercurial's linters. So, the code
is excluded from most lints. However, some violations I agree with.
These have been added to the known violations ignore list for now.
Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc@gmail.com> [Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:45:29 -0800] rev 30434
zstd: vendor zstd 1.1.1
zstd is a new compression format and it is awesome, yielding
higher compression ratios and significantly faster compression
and decompression operations compared to zlib (our current
compression engine of choice) across the board.
We want zstd to be a 1st class citizen in Mercurial and to eventually
be the preferred compression format for various operations.
This patch starts the formal process of supporting zstd by vendoring
a copy of zstd. Why do we need to vendor zstd? Good question.
First, zstd is relatively new and not widely available yet. If we
didn't vendor zstd or distribute it with Mercurial, most users likely
wouldn't have zstd installed or even available to install. What good
is a feature if you can't use it? Vendoring and distributing the zstd
sources gives us the highest liklihood that zstd will be available to
Mercurial installs.
Second, the Python bindings to zstd (which will be vendored in a
separate changeset) make use of zstd APIs that are only available
via static linking. One reason they are only available via static
linking is that they are unstable and could change at any time.
While it might be possible for the Python bindings to attempt to
talk to different versions of the zstd C library, the safest thing to
do is link against a specific, known-working version of zstd. This
is why the Python zstd bindings themselves vendor zstd and why we
must as well. This also explains why the added files are in a
"python-zstandard" directory.
The added files are from the 1.1.1 release of zstd (Git commit
4c0b44f8ced84c4c8edfa07b564d31e4fa3e8885 from
https://github.com/facebook/zstd) and are added without modifications.
Not all files from the zstd "distribution" have been added. Notably
missing are files to support interacting with "legacy," pre-1.0
versions of zstd. The decision of which files to include is made by
the upstream python-zstandard project (which I'm the author of). The
files in this commit are a snapshot of the files from the 0.5.0
release of that project, Git commit
e637c1b214d5f869cf8116c550dcae23ec13b677 from
https://github.com/indygreg/python-zstandard.