]>
Commit | Line | Data |
---|---|---|
628522ec JH |
1 | #include "cache.h" |
2 | #include "sha1-lookup.h" | |
3 | ||
96beef8c CC |
4 | static uint32_t take2(const unsigned char *sha1) |
5 | { | |
6 | return ((sha1[0] << 8) | sha1[1]); | |
7 | } | |
8 | ||
9 | /* | |
10 | * Conventional binary search loop looks like this: | |
11 | * | |
12 | * do { | |
13 | * int mi = (lo + hi) / 2; | |
14 | * int cmp = "entry pointed at by mi" minus "target"; | |
15 | * if (!cmp) | |
16 | * return (mi is the wanted one) | |
17 | * if (cmp > 0) | |
18 | * hi = mi; "mi is larger than target" | |
19 | * else | |
20 | * lo = mi+1; "mi is smaller than target" | |
21 | * } while (lo < hi); | |
22 | * | |
23 | * The invariants are: | |
24 | * | |
25 | * - When entering the loop, lo points at a slot that is never | |
26 | * above the target (it could be at the target), hi points at a | |
27 | * slot that is guaranteed to be above the target (it can never | |
28 | * be at the target). | |
29 | * | |
30 | * - We find a point 'mi' between lo and hi (mi could be the same | |
31 | * as lo, but never can be the same as hi), and check if it hits | |
32 | * the target. There are three cases: | |
33 | * | |
34 | * - if it is a hit, we are happy. | |
35 | * | |
36 | * - if it is strictly higher than the target, we update hi with | |
37 | * it. | |
38 | * | |
39 | * - if it is strictly lower than the target, we update lo to be | |
40 | * one slot after it, because we allow lo to be at the target. | |
41 | * | |
42 | * When choosing 'mi', we do not have to take the "middle" but | |
43 | * anywhere in between lo and hi, as long as lo <= mi < hi is | |
44 | * satisfied. When we somehow know that the distance between the | |
45 | * target and lo is much shorter than the target and hi, we could | |
46 | * pick mi that is much closer to lo than the midway. | |
47 | */ | |
48 | /* | |
49 | * The table should contain "nr" elements. | |
50 | * The sha1 of element i (between 0 and nr - 1) should be returned | |
51 | * by "fn(i, table)". | |
52 | */ | |
53 | int sha1_pos(const unsigned char *sha1, void *table, size_t nr, | |
54 | sha1_access_fn fn) | |
55 | { | |
56 | size_t hi = nr; | |
57 | size_t lo = 0; | |
58 | size_t mi = 0; | |
59 | ||
60 | if (!nr) | |
61 | return -1; | |
62 | ||
63 | if (nr != 1) { | |
64 | size_t lov, hiv, miv, ofs; | |
65 | ||
66 | for (ofs = 0; ofs < 18; ofs += 2) { | |
67 | lov = take2(fn(0, table) + ofs); | |
68 | hiv = take2(fn(nr - 1, table) + ofs); | |
69 | miv = take2(sha1 + ofs); | |
70 | if (miv < lov) | |
71 | return -1; | |
72 | if (hiv < miv) | |
73 | return -1 - nr; | |
74 | if (lov != hiv) { | |
75 | /* | |
76 | * At this point miv could be equal | |
77 | * to hiv (but sha1 could still be higher); | |
78 | * the invariant of (mi < hi) should be | |
79 | * kept. | |
80 | */ | |
81 | mi = (nr - 1) * (miv - lov) / (hiv - lov); | |
82 | if (lo <= mi && mi < hi) | |
83 | break; | |
1a7b1f6b | 84 | die("BUG: assertion failed in binary search"); |
96beef8c CC |
85 | } |
86 | } | |
96beef8c CC |
87 | } |
88 | ||
89 | do { | |
90 | int cmp; | |
91 | cmp = hashcmp(fn(mi, table), sha1); | |
92 | if (!cmp) | |
93 | return mi; | |
94 | if (cmp > 0) | |
95 | hi = mi; | |
96 | else | |
97 | lo = mi + 1; | |
98 | mi = (hi + lo) / 2; | |
99 | } while (lo < hi); | |
100 | return -lo-1; | |
101 | } | |
102 | ||
628522ec JH |
103 | /* |
104 | * Conventional binary search loop looks like this: | |
105 | * | |
106 | * unsigned lo, hi; | |
107 | * do { | |
108 | * unsigned mi = (lo + hi) / 2; | |
109 | * int cmp = "entry pointed at by mi" minus "target"; | |
110 | * if (!cmp) | |
111 | * return (mi is the wanted one) | |
112 | * if (cmp > 0) | |
113 | * hi = mi; "mi is larger than target" | |
114 | * else | |
115 | * lo = mi+1; "mi is smaller than target" | |
116 | * } while (lo < hi); | |
117 | * | |
118 | * The invariants are: | |
119 | * | |
120 | * - When entering the loop, lo points at a slot that is never | |
121 | * above the target (it could be at the target), hi points at a | |
122 | * slot that is guaranteed to be above the target (it can never | |
123 | * be at the target). | |
124 | * | |
125 | * - We find a point 'mi' between lo and hi (mi could be the same | |
126 | * as lo, but never can be as same as hi), and check if it hits | |
127 | * the target. There are three cases: | |
128 | * | |
129 | * - if it is a hit, we are happy. | |
130 | * | |
131 | * - if it is strictly higher than the target, we set it to hi, | |
132 | * and repeat the search. | |
133 | * | |
134 | * - if it is strictly lower than the target, we update lo to | |
135 | * one slot after it, because we allow lo to be at the target. | |
136 | * | |
137 | * If the loop exits, there is no matching entry. | |
138 | * | |
139 | * When choosing 'mi', we do not have to take the "middle" but | |
140 | * anywhere in between lo and hi, as long as lo <= mi < hi is | |
141 | * satisfied. When we somehow know that the distance between the | |
142 | * target and lo is much shorter than the target and hi, we could | |
143 | * pick mi that is much closer to lo than the midway. | |
144 | * | |
145 | * Now, we can take advantage of the fact that SHA-1 is a good hash | |
146 | * function, and as long as there are enough entries in the table, we | |
147 | * can expect uniform distribution. An entry that begins with for | |
148 | * example "deadbeef..." is much likely to appear much later than in | |
149 | * the midway of the table. It can reasonably be expected to be near | |
150 | * 87% (222/256) from the top of the table. | |
151 | * | |
12ecb011 JH |
152 | * However, we do not want to pick "mi" too precisely. If the entry at |
153 | * the 87% in the above example turns out to be higher than the target | |
154 | * we are looking for, we would end up narrowing the search space down | |
155 | * only by 13%, instead of 50% we would get if we did a simple binary | |
156 | * search. So we would want to hedge our bets by being less aggressive. | |
157 | * | |
628522ec JH |
158 | * The table at "table" holds at least "nr" entries of "elem_size" |
159 | * bytes each. Each entry has the SHA-1 key at "key_offset". The | |
160 | * table is sorted by the SHA-1 key of the entries. The caller wants | |
161 | * to find the entry with "key", and knows that the entry at "lo" is | |
162 | * not higher than the entry it is looking for, and that the entry at | |
163 | * "hi" is higher than the entry it is looking for. | |
164 | */ | |
165 | int sha1_entry_pos(const void *table, | |
166 | size_t elem_size, | |
167 | size_t key_offset, | |
168 | unsigned lo, unsigned hi, unsigned nr, | |
169 | const unsigned char *key) | |
170 | { | |
171 | const unsigned char *base = table; | |
172 | const unsigned char *hi_key, *lo_key; | |
173 | unsigned ofs_0; | |
174 | static int debug_lookup = -1; | |
175 | ||
176 | if (debug_lookup < 0) | |
177 | debug_lookup = !!getenv("GIT_DEBUG_LOOKUP"); | |
178 | ||
179 | if (!nr || lo >= hi) | |
180 | return -1; | |
181 | ||
182 | if (nr == hi) | |
183 | hi_key = NULL; | |
184 | else | |
185 | hi_key = base + elem_size * hi + key_offset; | |
186 | lo_key = base + elem_size * lo + key_offset; | |
187 | ||
188 | ofs_0 = 0; | |
189 | do { | |
190 | int cmp; | |
191 | unsigned ofs, mi, range; | |
192 | unsigned lov, hiv, kyv; | |
193 | const unsigned char *mi_key; | |
194 | ||
195 | range = hi - lo; | |
196 | if (hi_key) { | |
197 | for (ofs = ofs_0; ofs < 20; ofs++) | |
198 | if (lo_key[ofs] != hi_key[ofs]) | |
199 | break; | |
200 | ofs_0 = ofs; | |
201 | /* | |
202 | * byte 0 thru (ofs-1) are the same between | |
203 | * lo and hi; ofs is the first byte that is | |
204 | * different. | |
171bdaca JK |
205 | * |
206 | * If ofs==20, then no bytes are different, | |
207 | * meaning we have entries with duplicate | |
208 | * keys. We know that we are in a solid run | |
209 | * of this entry (because the entries are | |
210 | * sorted, and our lo and hi are the same, | |
211 | * there can be nothing but this single key | |
212 | * in between). So we can stop the search. | |
213 | * Either one of these entries is it (and | |
214 | * we do not care which), or we do not have | |
215 | * it. | |
216 | * | |
217 | * Furthermore, we know that one of our | |
218 | * endpoints must be the edge of the run of | |
219 | * duplicates. For example, given this | |
220 | * sequence: | |
221 | * | |
222 | * idx 0 1 2 3 4 5 | |
223 | * key A C C C C D | |
224 | * | |
225 | * If we are searching for "B", we might | |
226 | * hit the duplicate run at lo=1, hi=3 | |
227 | * (e.g., by first mi=3, then mi=0). But we | |
228 | * can never have lo > 1, because B < C. | |
229 | * That is, if our key is less than the | |
230 | * run, we know that "lo" is the edge, but | |
231 | * we can say nothing of "hi". Similarly, | |
232 | * if our key is greater than the run, we | |
233 | * know that "hi" is the edge, but we can | |
234 | * say nothing of "lo". | |
235 | * | |
236 | * Therefore if we do not find it, we also | |
237 | * know where it would go if it did exist: | |
238 | * just on the far side of the edge that we | |
239 | * know about. | |
628522ec | 240 | */ |
171bdaca JK |
241 | if (ofs == 20) { |
242 | mi = lo; | |
243 | mi_key = base + elem_size * mi + key_offset; | |
244 | cmp = memcmp(mi_key, key, 20); | |
245 | if (!cmp) | |
246 | return mi; | |
247 | if (cmp < 0) | |
248 | return -1 - hi; | |
249 | else | |
250 | return -1 - lo; | |
251 | } | |
252 | ||
628522ec JH |
253 | hiv = hi_key[ofs_0]; |
254 | if (ofs_0 < 19) | |
255 | hiv = (hiv << 8) | hi_key[ofs_0+1]; | |
256 | } else { | |
257 | hiv = 256; | |
258 | if (ofs_0 < 19) | |
259 | hiv <<= 8; | |
260 | } | |
261 | lov = lo_key[ofs_0]; | |
262 | kyv = key[ofs_0]; | |
263 | if (ofs_0 < 19) { | |
264 | lov = (lov << 8) | lo_key[ofs_0+1]; | |
265 | kyv = (kyv << 8) | key[ofs_0+1]; | |
266 | } | |
267 | assert(lov < hiv); | |
268 | ||
269 | if (kyv < lov) | |
270 | return -1 - lo; | |
271 | if (hiv < kyv) | |
272 | return -1 - hi; | |
273 | ||
12ecb011 JH |
274 | /* |
275 | * Even if we know the target is much closer to 'hi' | |
276 | * than 'lo', if we pick too precisely and overshoot | |
277 | * (e.g. when we know 'mi' is closer to 'hi' than to | |
278 | * 'lo', pick 'mi' that is higher than the target), we | |
279 | * end up narrowing the search space by a smaller | |
280 | * amount (i.e. the distance between 'mi' and 'hi') | |
281 | * than what we would have (i.e. about half of 'lo' | |
282 | * and 'hi'). Hedge our bets to pick 'mi' less | |
283 | * aggressively, i.e. make 'mi' a bit closer to the | |
284 | * middle than we would otherwise pick. | |
285 | */ | |
286 | kyv = (kyv * 6 + lov + hiv) / 8; | |
287 | if (lov < hiv - 1) { | |
288 | if (kyv == lov) | |
289 | kyv++; | |
290 | else if (kyv == hiv) | |
291 | kyv--; | |
292 | } | |
628522ec JH |
293 | mi = (range - 1) * (kyv - lov) / (hiv - lov) + lo; |
294 | ||
295 | if (debug_lookup) { | |
296 | printf("lo %u hi %u rg %u mi %u ", lo, hi, range, mi); | |
297 | printf("ofs %u lov %x, hiv %x, kyv %x\n", | |
298 | ofs_0, lov, hiv, kyv); | |
299 | } | |
300 | if (!(lo <= mi && mi < hi)) | |
301 | die("assertion failure lo %u mi %u hi %u %s", | |
302 | lo, mi, hi, sha1_to_hex(key)); | |
303 | ||
304 | mi_key = base + elem_size * mi + key_offset; | |
305 | cmp = memcmp(mi_key + ofs_0, key + ofs_0, 20 - ofs_0); | |
306 | if (!cmp) | |
307 | return mi; | |
308 | if (cmp > 0) { | |
309 | hi = mi; | |
310 | hi_key = mi_key; | |
12ecb011 | 311 | } else { |
628522ec JH |
312 | lo = mi + 1; |
313 | lo_key = mi_key + elem_size; | |
314 | } | |
315 | } while (lo < hi); | |
316 | return -lo-1; | |
317 | } |