Aligned / configurable memory allocation
Hello, I apologize for pinging the list, but I was wondering if there was interest in either of https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5457 (make array data aligned by default) or https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5470 (make the array data allocator configurable)? Regards Antoine.
On 10 Feb 2015 09:11, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Hello,
I apologize for pinging the list, but I was wondering if there was interest in either of https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5457 (make array data aligned by default) or https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5470 (make the array data allocator configurable)?
I'm not a fan of the configurable allocator. It adds new public APIs for us to support, and makes switching to using Python's own memory allocation APIs more complex. The feature is intrinsically dangerous, because newly installed deallocators must be able to handle memory allocated by the previous allocator. (AFAICT the included test case can crash the test process if you get unlucky and GC runs during it?). And no one's articulated any compelling argument for why we need this configurability. Regarding the aligned allocation patch, I think the problem is just that none of us have any way to evaluate it. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with some solid numbers showing the costs and benefits on old and new systems. -n
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:26:22 -0800 Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015 09:11, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Hello,
I apologize for pinging the list, but I was wondering if there was interest in either of https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5457 (make array data aligned by default) or https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5470 (make the array data allocator configurable)?
I'm not a fan of the configurable allocator. It adds new public APIs for us to support, and makes switching to using Python's own memory allocation APIs more complex. The feature is intrinsically dangerous, because newly installed deallocators must be able to handle memory allocated by the previous allocator. (AFAICT the included test case can crash the test process if you get unlucky and GC runs during it?).
It's taken care of in the patch.
Regarding the aligned allocation patch, I think the problem is just that none of us have any way to evaluate it. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with some solid numbers showing the costs and benefits on old and new systems.
Ok. Regards Antoine.
On 10 Feb 2015 13:10, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:26:22 -0800 Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015 09:11, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Hello,
I apologize for pinging the list, but I was wondering if there was interest in either of https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5457 (make array data aligned by default) or https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5470 (make the array data
allocator
configurable)?
I'm not a fan of the configurable allocator. It adds new public APIs for us to support, and makes switching to using Python's own memory allocation APIs more complex. The feature is intrinsically dangerous, because newly installed deallocators must be able to handle memory allocated by the previous allocator. (AFAICT the included test case can crash the test process if you get unlucky and GC runs during it?).
It's taken care of in the patch.
Ah, I see -- I missed that you added an allocator field to PyArrayObject. That does reduce my objections to the patch. But I'm still not sure what problems this is solving exactly. Also, if we do decide to add a deallocation callback to PyArrayObject then I think we should take advantage of the opportunity to also make life easier for c API users who need a custom callback on a case-by-case basis and currently have to jump through hoops using ->base. -n
On 10.02.2015 22:33, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015 13:10, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net <mailto:solipsis@pitrou.net>> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:26:22 -0800 Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com <mailto:njs@pobox.com>> wrote:
On 10 Feb 2015 09:11, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net
<mailto:solipsis@pitrou.net>> wrote:
Hello,
I apologize for pinging the list, but I was wondering if there was interest in either of https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5457 (make array data aligned by default) or https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/5470 (make the array data
allocator
configurable)?
I'm not a fan of the configurable allocator. It adds new public APIs for us to support, and makes switching to using Python's own memory allocation APIs more complex. The feature is intrinsically dangerous, because newly installed deallocators must be able to handle memory allocated by the previous allocator. (AFAICT the included test case can crash the test process if you get unlucky and GC runs during it?).
It's taken care of in the patch.
unfortunately it also breaks the ABI on two fronts, by adding a new member to the public array struct which needs initializing by non api using users and by removing the ability to use free on array pointers. Both not particularly large breaks, but breaks nonetheless. At least for the first issue we should (like for the proposed dtype and ufunc changes) apply a more generic break of hiding the new internal members in a new private structure that embeds the public structure unchanged. The second issue can probably be ignored, though we could retain it for posix/c11 as those standards wisely decided to make aligned pointers freeable with free. That on the other hand costs us efficient calloc and realloc (standard comities are weird sometimes ...)
Ah, I see -- I missed that you added an allocator field to PyArrayObject. That does reduce my objections to the patch. But I'm still not sure what problems this is solving exactly.
Also, if we do decide to add a deallocation callback to PyArrayObject then I think we should take advantage of the opportunity to also make life easier for c API users who need a custom callback on a case-by-case basis and currently have to jump through hoops using ->base.
participants (3)
-
Antoine Pitrou -
Julian Taylor -
Nathaniel Smith