GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — gh-132657: Add free-threading scaling benchmark for copy.copy and copy.deepcopy by eendebakpt · Pull Request #132658 · python/cpython

Conversation

@eendebakpt

@eendebakpt eendebakpt commented Apr 17, 2025 •
edited by bedevere-app Bot
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

In this branch two benchmarks for the free-threading scaling are added. They are not completely microbenchmarks (they test multiple aspects of the free-threaded performance).

  • Issue: copy.copy and copy.deepcopy scale poorly with free-threading #132657

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
@eendebakpt
Add free-threading scaling bm
b2fb5ec
@bedevere-app bedevere-app Bot added the awaiting review label Apr 17, 2025
@bedevere-app bedevere-app Bot mentioned this pull request Apr 17, 2025
copy.copy and copy.deepcopy scale poorly with free-threading #132657
Closed
colesbury
colesbury reviewed Apr 18, 2025
View reviewed changes

@colesbury colesbury left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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.

This looks good, but in general my preference is to add these benchmarks when we fix the scaling issue. I think of these like regression tests, and having a mix of "passing" and "failing" cases makes it harder to notice regressions.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
Comment thread Tools/ftscalingbench/ftscalingbench.py Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Comment thread Tools/ftscalingbench/ftscalingbench.py Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@eendebakpt @colesbury
Apply suggestions from code review
430cb5c 
Co-authored-by: Sam Gross <[email protected]>
@eendebakpt

eendebakpt commented Apr 21, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks for the feedback. I suspect we will only need one of the two benchmarks as a regression test (as the reason for not scaling seems to be the same). Once we have a better scaling, I will remove one of the tests.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@kumaraditya303 kumaraditya303 added the topic-free-threading label Jun 23, 2025
@eendebakpt
Merge branch 'main' into ftscaling_copy
677f126
@eendebakpt eendebakpt mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2025
gh-132657: Make deepcopy and copy scale with free-threading #138429
Merged
@kumaraditya303 kumaraditya303 added the skip news label Sep 5, 2025
@colesbury
Merge branch 'main' into ftscaling_copy
5368547
nascheme added a commit to nascheme/cpython that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2025
@nascheme
Add deepcopy benchmark to ftscalingbench.
5ef77af 
This is taken from the PR pythonGH-132658.
@eendebakpt

eendebakpt commented Jan 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@colesbury The deepcopy benchmark was already merged in #142843. The copy benchmark overlaps for a large part with the deepcopy benchmark (e.g. both have the same potential FT bottlenecks). Unless there are reasons to add the copy as well I suggest we close this PR.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@colesbury

colesbury commented Jan 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Sounds good to me
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@colesbury colesbury closed this Jan 20, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@colesbury colesbury colesbury left review comments

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

awaiting review skip news topic-free-threading

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

3 participants

@eendebakpt @colesbury @kumaraditya303
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
You are visitor 01402520 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.