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 — bpo-46841: Use inline caching for calls by brandtbucher · Pull Request #31709 · python/cpython

Conversation

@brandtbucher

@brandtbucher brandtbucher commented Mar 6, 2022 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

Uh oh!

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Also:

  • remove the "old" non-inline caching machinery
  • fix some bugs in the collection of PRECALL/CALL specialization stats
  • shrink the cache size requirements for PRECALL/CALL instructions

Next steps tracked at faster-cpython/ideas#310.

https://bugs.python.org/issue46841

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
brandtbucher added 9 commits March 4, 2022 11:36
@brandtbucher
Use inline caching for CALL
2820d50
@brandtbucher
Catch up with main
cb7dbea
@brandtbucher
Use inline caching for PRECALL
ca72a99
@brandtbucher
Rip out the old quickening code
59ad3ed
@brandtbucher
Clean things up
ba214fc
@brandtbucher
Use a per-interpreter callable cache
c5d6922
@brandtbucher
Clean things up a bit
8f21380
@brandtbucher
Fix typo
d9480d2
@brandtbucher
blurb add
2021895
@brandtbucher
brandtbucher requested a review from markshannon as a code owner March 6, 2022 18:46
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added the awaiting core review label Mar 6, 2022
@the-knights-who-say-ni the-knights-who-say-ni added the CLA signed label Mar 6, 2022
This was referenced Mar 6, 2022
Inline caching faster-cpython/ideas#310
Closed
bpo-46939: Specialize calls to Python classes #31707
Closed
@markshannon markshannon added the 🔨 test-with-buildbots Test PR w/ buildbots; report in status section label Mar 7, 2022
@bedevere-bot

bedevere-bot commented Mar 7, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @markshannon for commit 2021895 🤖

If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the 🔨 test-with-buildbots Test PR w/ buildbots; report in status section label Mar 7, 2022
@markshannon markshannon added the 🔨 test-with-buildbots Test PR w/ buildbots; report in status section label Mar 7, 2022
@bedevere-bot

bedevere-bot commented Mar 7, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @markshannon for commit 2021895 🤖

If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the 🔨 test-with-buildbots Test PR w/ buildbots; report in status section label Mar 7, 2022
markshannon
markshannon approved these changes Mar 7, 2022
View reviewed changes

@markshannon markshannon left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

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.

Excellent.
A couple comments, but nothing to block merging.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
Comment thread Include/internal/pycore_code.h
);
}
/* Maximum size of code to quicken, in code units. */
#define MAX_SIZE_TO_QUICKEN 10000

@markshannon markshannon Mar 7, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

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.

Is this just to get the unpack sequence benchmark to work again, or something else?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

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

@brandtbucher brandtbucher Mar 7, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

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.

Nope, just for unpack_sequence.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
Comment thread Include/internal/pycore_code.h
PyObject *isinstance;
PyObject *len;
PyObject *list_append;
};

@markshannon markshannon Mar 7, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

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 the existence of PyList_Type as part of the API means that list.append must be per-process unique.
In other words, list_append could be static.

I'm happy to leave it as is for now, though. We should look to make the whole struct static, although the mutability of builtin functions makes that tricky for isinstance and len.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

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

@brandtbucher brandtbucher Mar 7, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

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 believe each interpreter has its own builtins module (check out _PyBuiltin_Init), so making this static could be tricky. As you said, though: probably worth looking into in the future.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added awaiting merge and removed awaiting core review labels Mar 7, 2022
@brandtbucher
brandtbucher merged commit f193631 into python:main Mar 7, 2022
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the awaiting merge label Mar 7, 2022
@brandtbucher brandtbucher mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2022
Inline bytecode caches #90997
Closed
@brandtbucher
brandtbucher deleted the inline-call branch July 21, 2022 20:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@markshannon markshannon markshannon approved these changes

Uh oh!

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

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

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.

4 participants

@brandtbucher @bedevere-bot @markshannon @the-knights-who-say-ni
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 01402503 — 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.