GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GeezerVison is showing github.com — gh-139922: Tail calling for MSVC (VS 2026) by Fidget-Spinner · Pull Request #139962 · python/cpython Conversation
|
| #endif | ||
|
|
||
| /* How much scratch space to give stackref to PyObject* conversion. */ | ||
| #define MAX_STACKREF_SCRATCH 1024 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How arbitrary is this amount? What is the usual amount of space required for conversions?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We used to arbitrarily always consume 10 PyObject/PyStackRef per call. Meaning even if you had a single item, the whole 10 slot space would be used.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| inst(LOAD_BUILD_CLASS, ( -- bc)) { | ||
| PyObject *bc_o; | ||
| int err = PyMapping_GetOptionalItem(BUILTINS(), &_Py_ID(__build_class__), &bc_o); | ||
| PyObject *Py_MSVC_RESTRICT bc_o; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if there's a more semantically meaningful name than Py_MSVC_RESTRICT here? "Unaliased" or "no escape"?
And possibly define it as a macro like #define UNALIASED(x) x Py_MSVC_RESTRICT to get UNALIASED(PyObject *) bc_o?
Just looking to reduce the sense of "oh I have to go look up this MSVC thing to know what's going on here" when reading the code. There may be other ways.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| int *Py_MSVC_RESTRICT method_found_ptr = &method_found; | ||
| attr_o = _PySuper_Lookup(cls, self, name, | ||
| Py_TYPE(self)->tp_getattro == PyObject_GenericGetAttr ? method_found_ptr : NULL); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Indent? Like in other places
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| PyObject *stack[] = {class, self}; | ||
| PyObject *super = PyObject_Vectorcall(global_super, stack, oparg & 2, NULL); | ||
| PyObject *super; | ||
| Py_BEGIN_LOCALS_MUST_NOT_ESCAPE(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We usually don't require parentheses on macros like this, especially when they define a scope.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| <ClCompile Include="..\Python\brc.c" /> | ||
| <ClCompile Include="..\Python\ceval.c" /> | ||
| <ClCompile Include="..\Python\ceval.c"> | ||
| <AdditionalOptions Condition="'$(UseTailCallInterp)' == 'true' and $(PlatformToolset) != 'ClangCL'">/std:clatest %(AdditionalOptions)</AdditionalOptions> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What happens if we pass this option to clang-cl? Does it break?
Any possibility of passing a specific /std:c rather than "latest"?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So I've worked with Chris on this and apparently it builds with clang-cl still the last time I checked with him? @chris-eibl
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What happens if we pass this option to clang-cl? Does it break?
Yupp, clang-cl doesn't like /std:clatest, hence I omitted it, because it doesn't need it.
Seems the clang-cl versions we are using (>=19)
restrict)But I assume MSVC needs /std:clatest for [[msvc::musttail]] - @Fidget-Spinner correct?
And at least MSVC definitely needs at least /std:c11 for restrict (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/std-specify-language-standard-version?view=msvc-170).
Any possibility of passing a specific /std:c rather than "latest"?
Yeah, we could explicitely enforce /std:c11for clang-cl, but we didn't need it in the past and AFAICT this PR didn't change anything that clang-cl sees, due to carefully crafted combinations of _MSC_VER and __clang__ like
#if defined(_MSC_VER) && !defined(__clang__)
and apparently it builds with clang-cl still the last time I checked with him?
Yes, it still does. Having done a lot of builds recently and still playing around.
And tail calling CI is green as well: https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/18435075900/job/52527447202
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm under the impression we need clatest for msvc musttail as well.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've just verified again:
[[msvc::musttail]]error C2143: syntax error: missing ';' before '['/std:clatestSo atm we're stuck with this construct until MSVC introduces a new "fixed" option (or maybe accepts [[msvc::musttail]] in /std:c17).
I agree with Steve #135927 (comment)
For the record, I don't like building with Clatest and if we're considering making that change upstream, we should pick a version.
and we should revisit this once we know a fixed version option for it.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Co-Authored-By: Chris Eibl <[email protected]>
…inner/cpython into msvc-tailcall-take-two
| # define Py_NO_INLINE_MSVC_TAILCALL | ||
| #endif | ||
|
|
||
| // Tells the compiler that this variable cannot be alised. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Grammar nit, but "cannot be aliased" is ambiguous (because it's not clear whether we are choosing not to alias it, or telling the compiler that it cannot choose to alias it).
I think we're promising that it won't be aliased? So "Tells the compiler to trust that we haven't aliased this variable" better explains what it's doing. Or just "... this variable is not going to be aliased".
Alternatively, "Tells the compiler not to alias the variable" (but I don't think that even makes sense, let alone being correct here).
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
What is necessary for tail calling? IIUC, the restict annotations and the tighter scoping around arrays in the interpreter are necessary, but moving the temporary arrays from the C stack to the threadstate are not. Is that correct? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
No this is needed too. The problem is that the temporary arrays from the C stack are local variables. These variables are passed around in ways that are unpredictable to MSVC (such as passing to an arbitrary vectorcall function pointer). So we have to move this to thread state to get tail calling. There are other side benefits and I've wanted to do this for awhile, so I thought might as well put this in this PR. Do you still want to split up the restrict stuff knowing that we need both to get TC on MSVC? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
This PR should contain everything that is necessary for tailcalling. If that includes moving the temporary arrays then move them. But, why is it necessary to move the arrays? If this array https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/139962/files#diff-729a985b0cb8b431cb291f1edb561bbbfea22e3f8c262451cd83328a0936a342R3522 is made OK by adding parentheses, then why not the temporary arrays? In fact, why do we need to insert the parentheses in bytecodes.c at all. Why not do it in the code generator as we discussed a while ago? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
I'm not sure what MSVC is doing under the hood here, but the last time I tried, just adding scoping around the temporary arrays doesn't work. It seems to be more lines of code and more maintainence burden to add functionality to the cases generator to detect what is the smallest possible scope to wrap a escaping local variable around. We dont have that many cases in bytecodes.c so I think we should just do it manually. Note that we cant just add curly braces, we need to pass variables around too in certain cases. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@markshannon gentle ping to see the latest comment please, thanks! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Co-Authored-By: Chris Eibl <[email protected]>
|
Sorry for the noise. Trying to get CI to download VS 2026 programatically and compile. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
CI wranging is too difficult. I wail wait till GHA updates itself then use that. Sorry for the noise everyone! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This PR changes the current JIT model from trace projection to trace recording. Benchmarking: better pyperformance (about 1.7% overall) geomean versus current https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebookexperimental/free-threading-benchmarking/refs/heads/main/results/bm-20251108-3.15.0a1%2B-7e2bc1d-JIT/bm-20251108-vultr-x86_64-Fidget%252dSpinner-tracing_jit-3.15.0a1%2B-7e2bc1d-vs-base.svg, 100% faster Richards on the most improved benchmark versus the current JIT. Slowdown of about 10-15% on the worst benchmark versus the current JIT. **Note: the fastest version isn't the one merged, as it relies on fixing bugs in the specializing interpreter, which is left to another PR**. The speedup in the merged version is about 1.1%. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebookexperimental/free-threading-benchmarking/refs/heads/main/results/bm-20251112-3.15.0a1%2B-f8a764a-JIT/bm-20251112-vultr-x86_64-Fidget%252dSpinner-tracing_jit-3.15.0a1%2B-f8a764a-vs-base.svg Stats: 50% more uops executed, 30% more traces entered the last time we ran them. It also suggests our trace lengths for a real trace recording JIT are too short, as a lot of trace too long aborts https://github.com/facebookexperimental/free-threading-benchmarking/blob/main/results/bm-20251023-3.15.0a1%2B-eb73378-CLANG%2CJIT/bm-20251023-vultr-x86_64-Fidget%252dSpinner-tracing_jit-3.15.0a1%2B-eb73378-pystats-vs-base.md . This new JIT frontend is already able to record/execute significantly more instructions than the previous JIT frontend. In this PR, we are now able to record through custom dunders, simple object creation, generators, etc. None of these were done by the old JIT frontend. Some custom dunders uops were discovered to be broken as part of this work gh-140277 The optimizer stack space check is disabled, as it's no longer valid to deal with underflow. Pros: * Ignoring the generated tracer code as it's automatically created, this is only additional 1k lines of code. The maintenance burden is handled by the DSL and code generator. * `optimizer.c` is now significantly simpler, as we don't have to do strange things to recover the bytecode from a trace. * The new JIT frontend is able to handle a lot more control-flow than the old one. * Tracing is very low overhead. We use the tail calling interpreter/computed goto interpreter to switch between tracing mode and non-tracing mode. I call this mechanism dual dispatch, as we have two dispatch tables dispatching to each other. Specialization is still enabled while tracing. * Better handling of polymorphism. We leverage the specializing interpreter for this. Cons: * (For now) requires tail calling interpreter or computed gotos. This means no Windows JIT for now :(. Not to fret, tail calling is coming soon to Windows though #139962 Design: * After each instruction, the `record_previous_inst` function/label is executed. This does as the name suggests. * The tracing interpreter lowers bytecode to uops directly so that it can obtain "fresh" values at the point of lowering. * The tracing version behaves nearly identical to the normal interpreter, in fact it even has specialization! This allows it to run without much of a slowdown when tracing. The actual cost of tracing is only a function call and writes to memory. * The tracing interpreter uses the specializing interpreter's deopt to naturally form the side exit chains. This allows it to side exit chain effectively, without repeating much code. We force a re-specializing when tracing a deopt. * The tracing interpreter can even handle goto errors/exceptions, but I chose to disable them for now as it's not tested. * Because we do not share interpreter dispatch, there is should be no significant slowdown to the original specializing interpreter on tailcall and computed got with JIT disabled. With JIT enabled, there might be a slowdown in the form of the JIT trying to trace. * Things that could have dynamic instruction pointer effects are guarded on. The guard deopts to a new instruction --- `_DYNAMIC_EXIT`.
…honGH-140310) This PR changes the current JIT model from trace projection to trace recording. Benchmarking: better pyperformance (about 1.7% overall) geomean versus current https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebookexperimental/free-threading-benchmarking/refs/heads/main/results/bm-20251108-3.15.0a1%2B-7e2bc1d-JIT/bm-20251108-vultr-x86_64-Fidget%252dSpinner-tracing_jit-3.15.0a1%2B-7e2bc1d-vs-base.svg, 100% faster Richards on the most improved benchmark versus the current JIT. Slowdown of about 10-15% on the worst benchmark versus the current JIT. **Note: the fastest version isn't the one merged, as it relies on fixing bugs in the specializing interpreter, which is left to another PR**. The speedup in the merged version is about 1.1%. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebookexperimental/free-threading-benchmarking/refs/heads/main/results/bm-20251112-3.15.0a1%2B-f8a764a-JIT/bm-20251112-vultr-x86_64-Fidget%252dSpinner-tracing_jit-3.15.0a1%2B-f8a764a-vs-base.svg Stats: 50% more uops executed, 30% more traces entered the last time we ran them. It also suggests our trace lengths for a real trace recording JIT are too short, as a lot of trace too long aborts https://github.com/facebookexperimental/free-threading-benchmarking/blob/main/results/bm-20251023-3.15.0a1%2B-eb73378-CLANG%2CJIT/bm-20251023-vultr-x86_64-Fidget%252dSpinner-tracing_jit-3.15.0a1%2B-eb73378-pystats-vs-base.md . This new JIT frontend is already able to record/execute significantly more instructions than the previous JIT frontend. In this PR, we are now able to record through custom dunders, simple object creation, generators, etc. None of these were done by the old JIT frontend. Some custom dunders uops were discovered to be broken as part of this work pythongh-140277 The optimizer stack space check is disabled, as it's no longer valid to deal with underflow. Pros: * Ignoring the generated tracer code as it's automatically created, this is only additional 1k lines of code. The maintenance burden is handled by the DSL and code generator. * `optimizer.c` is now significantly simpler, as we don't have to do strange things to recover the bytecode from a trace. * The new JIT frontend is able to handle a lot more control-flow than the old one. * Tracing is very low overhead. We use the tail calling interpreter/computed goto interpreter to switch between tracing mode and non-tracing mode. I call this mechanism dual dispatch, as we have two dispatch tables dispatching to each other. Specialization is still enabled while tracing. * Better handling of polymorphism. We leverage the specializing interpreter for this. Cons: * (For now) requires tail calling interpreter or computed gotos. This means no Windows JIT for now :(. Not to fret, tail calling is coming soon to Windows though python#139962 Design: * After each instruction, the `record_previous_inst` function/label is executed. This does as the name suggests. * The tracing interpreter lowers bytecode to uops directly so that it can obtain "fresh" values at the point of lowering. * The tracing version behaves nearly identical to the normal interpreter, in fact it even has specialization! This allows it to run without much of a slowdown when tracing. The actual cost of tracing is only a function call and writes to memory. * The tracing interpreter uses the specializing interpreter's deopt to naturally form the side exit chains. This allows it to side exit chain effectively, without repeating much code. We force a re-specializing when tracing a deopt. * The tracing interpreter can even handle goto errors/exceptions, but I chose to disable them for now as it's not tested. * Because we do not share interpreter dispatch, there is should be no significant slowdown to the original specializing interpreter on tailcall and computed got with JIT disabled. With JIT enabled, there might be a slowdown in the form of the JIT trying to trace. * Things that could have dynamic instruction pointer effects are guarded on. The guard deopts to a new instruction --- `_DYNAMIC_EXIT`.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.