-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
gh-115999: Add free-threaded specialization for STORE_SUBSCR
#127169
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
The specialization only depends on the type, so no special thread-safety considerations there. STORE_SUBSCR_LIST_INT needs to lock the list before modifying it. `_PyDict_SetItem_Take2` already internally locks the dictionary using a critical section.
// avoid any potentially escaping calls (like PyStackRef_CLOSE) while the | ||
// object is locked. | ||
#ifdef Py_GIL_DISABLED | ||
# define LOCK_OBJECT(op) PyMutex_LockFast(&(_PyObject_CAST(op))->ob_mutex) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mpage, I think this locking pattern will be slightly faster than using critical sections inline in bytecodes.c. The downside is that we will deopt if there's any lock contention, but I think that's an okay tradeoff.
If we decide to go with this pattern, we can update UNPACK_SEQUENCE_LIST
to use it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes sense to me.
@corona10 - I put my name down next to |
( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice! I left one comment/question inline and there's a compiler warning that we need to fix up.
// avoid any potentially escaping calls (like PyStackRef_CLOSE) while the | ||
// object is locked. | ||
#ifdef Py_GIL_DISABLED | ||
# define LOCK_OBJECT(op) PyMutex_LockFast(&(_PyObject_CAST(op))->ob_mutex) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes sense to me.
if (as_mapping && (as_mapping->mp_ass_subscript | ||
== PyDict_Type.tp_as_mapping->mp_ass_subscript)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's possible for a data race to occur between the load in as_mapping->mp_ass_subscript
and an assignment to the same field in another thread (potentially as a result of Python code assigning to the type's __setitem__
attr). I'm not totally sure what we want to do here, but a couple of thoughts:
- We could use an atomic load in
as_mapping->mp_ass_subscript
and change the code intypeobject.c
that updates the slots to use atomic stores. - Or, since this only happens in stats builds and is benign (to the extent that a data race is benign), we could just ignore it.
Race condition with the wrong lock :) Fine, thank you for the work, I've updated the list of issues. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please add test codes at test_opcache.py
cpython/Lib/test/test_opcache.py
Line 1227 in d24a22e
class TestSpecializer(TestBase): |
The specialization only depends on the type, so no special thread-safety considerations there.
STORE_SUBSCR_LIST_INT needs to lock the list before modifying it.
_PyDict_SetItem_Take2
already internally locks the dictionary using a critical section.--disable-gil
builds #115999