On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 10:23 AM Eric Snow <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most of the work toward interpreter isolation and a per-interpreter > GIL involves moving static global variables to _PyRuntimeState or > PyInterpreterState (or module state). Through the effort of quite a > few people, we've made good progress. However, many globals still > remain, with the majority being objects and most of those being static > strings (e.g. _Py_Identifier), static types (incl. exceptions), and > singletons. > > On top of that, a number of those objects are exposed in the public > C-API and even in the limited API. :( Dealing with this specifically > is probably the trickiest thing I've had to work through in this > project. > > There is one solution that would help both of the above in a nice way: > "immortal" objects. > > The idea of objects that never get deallocated isn't new and has been > explored here several times. Not that long ago I tried it out by > setting the refcount really high. That worked. Around the same time > Eddie Elizondo at Facebook did something similar but modified > Py_INCREF() and Py_DECREF() to keep the refcount from changing. Our > solutions were similar but with different goals in mind. (Facebook > wants to avoid copy-on-write in their pre-fork model.) > > A while back I concluded that neither approach would work for us. The > approach I had taken would have significant cache performance > penalties in a per-interpreter GIL world. The approach that modifies > Py_INCREF() has a significant performance penalty due to the extra > branch on such a frequent operation. > > Recently I've come back to the idea of immortal objects because it's > much simpler than the alternate (working) solution I found. So how do > we get around that performance penalty? Let's say it makes CPython 5% > slower. We have some options: > > * live with the full penalty > * make other changes to reduce the penalty to a more acceptable > threshold than 5% > * eliminate the penalty (e.g. claw back 5% elsewhere) > * abandon all hope > > Mark Shannon suggested to me some things we can do. Also, from a > recent conversation with Dino Viehland it sounds like Eddie was able > to reach performance-neutral with a few techniques. So here are some > things we can do to reduce or eliminate that penalty: > > * reduce refcount operations on high-activity objects (e.g. None, True, > False) > * reduce refcount operations in general > * walk the heap at the end of runtime initialization and mark all > objects as immortal > * mark all global objects as immortal (statics or in _PyRuntimeState; > for PyInterpreterState not needed) > > What do you think? Does this sound realistic? Are there additional > things we can do to counter that penalty? > There's also the concern of memory usage if these immortal objects are never collected. But *which *objects are immortal? You only listed None, True, and False. Otherwise assume/remember I'm management and provide a list and/or link of what would get marked as immortal so we can have an idea of the memory impact.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/XSN7EFFQHGG4PS4JVXRXT7Q626ZGIKHF/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
