Mailman 3 November 2017 - Python-Dev

PEP 564: Add new time functions with nanosecond resolution
by Victor Stinner Nov. 3, 2017

Nov. 3, 2017

Hi, While discussions on this PEP are not over on python-ideas, I proposed this PEP directly on python-dev since I consider that my PEP already summarizes current and past proposed alternatives. python-ideas threads: * Add time.time_ns(): system clock with nanosecond resolution * Why not picoseconds? The PEP 564 will be shortly online at: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0564/ Victor PEP: 564 Title: Add new time functions with nanosecond resolution Version: $Revision$ Last-Modified: $Date$ Author: Victor Stinner <victor.stinner(a)gmail.com> Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 16-October-2017 Python-Version: 3.7 Abstract ======== Add five new functions to the ``time`` module: ``time_ns()``, ``perf_counter_ns()``, ``monotonic_ns()``, ``clock_gettime_ns()`` and ``clock_settime_ns()``. They are similar to the function without the ``_ns`` suffix, but have nanosecond resolution: use a number of nanoseconds as a Python int. The best ``time.time_ns()`` resolution measured in Python is 3 times better then ``time.time()`` resolution on Linux and Windows. Rationale ========= Float type limited to 104 days ------------------------------ The clocks resolution of desktop and latop computers is getting closer to nanosecond resolution. More and more clocks have a frequency in MHz, up to GHz for the CPU TSC clock. The Python ``time.time()`` function returns the current time as a floatting point number which is usually a 64-bit binary floatting number (in the IEEE 754 format). The problem is that the float type starts to lose nanoseconds after 104 days. Conversion from nanoseconds (``int``) to seconds (``float``) and then back to nanoseconds (``int``) to check if conversions lose precision:: # no precision loss >>> x = 2 ** 52 + 1; int(float(x * 1e-9) * 1e9) - x 0 # precision loss! (1 nanosecond) >>> x = 2 ** 53 + 1; int(float(x * 1e-9) * 1e9) - x -1 >>> print(datetime.timedelta(seconds=2 ** 53 / 1e9)) 104 days, 5:59:59.254741 ``time.time()`` returns seconds elapsed since the UNIX epoch: January 1st, 1970. This function loses precision since May 1970 (47 years ago):: >>> import datetime >>> unix_epoch = datetime.datetime(1970, 1, 1) >>> print(unix_epoch + datetime.timedelta(seconds=2**53 / 1e9)) 1970-04-15 05:59:59.254741 Previous rejected PEP --------------------- Five years ago, the PEP 410 proposed a large and complex change in all Python functions returning time to support nanosecond resolution using the ``decimal.Decimal`` type. The PEP was rejected for different reasons: * The idea of adding a new optional parameter to change the result type was rejected. It's an uncommon (and bad?) programming practice in Python. * It was not clear if hardware clocks really had a resolution of 1 nanosecond, especially at the Python level. * The ``decimal.Decimal`` type is uncommon in Python and so requires to adapt code to handle it. CPython enhancements of the last 5 years ---------------------------------------- Since the PEP 410 was rejected: * The ``os.stat_result`` structure got 3 new fields for timestamps as nanoseconds (Python ``int``): ``st_atime_ns``, ``st_ctime_ns`` and ``st_mtime_ns``. * The PEP 418 was accepted, Python 3.3 got 3 new clocks: ``time.monotonic()``, ``time.perf_counter()`` and ``time.process_time()``. * The CPython private "pytime" C API handling time now uses a new ``_PyTime_t`` type: simple 64-bit signed integer (C ``int64_t``). The ``_PyTime_t`` unit is an implementation detail and not part of the API. The unit is currently ``1 nanosecond``. Existing Python APIs using nanoseconds as int --------------------------------------------- The ``os.stat_result`` structure has 3 fields for timestamps as nanoseconds (``int``): ``st_atime_ns``, ``st_ctime_ns`` and ``st_mtime_ns``. The ``ns`` parameter of the ``os.utime()`` function accepts a ``(atime_ns: int, mtime_ns: int)`` tuple: nanoseconds. Changes ======= New functions ------------- This PEP adds five new functions to the ``time`` module: * ``time.clock_gettime_ns(clock_id)`` * ``time.clock_settime_ns(clock_id, time: int)`` * ``time.perf_counter_ns()`` * ``time.monotonic_ns()`` * ``time.time_ns()`` These functions are similar to the version without the ``_ns`` suffix, but use nanoseconds as Python ``int``. For example, ``time.monotonic_ns() == int(time.monotonic() * 1e9)`` if ``monotonic()`` value is small enough to not lose precision. Unchanged functions ------------------- This PEP only proposed to add new functions getting or setting clocks with nanosecond resolution. Clocks are likely to lose precision, especially when their reference is the UNIX epoch. Python has other functions handling time (get time, timeout, etc.), but no nanosecond variant is proposed for them since they are less likely to lose precision. Example of unchanged functions: * ``os`` module: ``sched_rr_get_interval()``, ``times()``, ``wait3()`` and ``wait4()`` * ``resource`` module: ``ru_utime`` and ``ru_stime`` fields of ``getrusage()`` * ``signal`` module: ``getitimer()``, ``setitimer()`` * ``time`` module: ``clock_getres()`` Since the ``time.clock()`` function was deprecated in Python 3.3, no ``time.clock_ns()`` is added. Alternatives and discussion =========================== Sub-nanosecond resolution ------------------------- ``time.time_ns()`` API is not "future-proof": if clocks resolutions increase, new Python functions may be needed. In practive, the resolution of 1 nanosecond is currently enough for all structures used by all operating systems functions. Hardware clock with a resolution better than 1 nanosecond already exists. For example, the frequency of a CPU TSC clock is the CPU base frequency: the resolution is around 0.3 ns for a CPU running at 3 GHz. Users who have access to such hardware and really need sub-nanosecond resolution can easyly extend Python for their needs. Such rare use case don't justify to design the Python standard library to support sub-nanosecond resolution. For the CPython implementation, nanosecond resolution is convenient: the standard and well supported ``int64_t`` type can be used to store time. It supports a time delta between -292 years and 292 years. Using the UNIX epoch as reference, this type supports time since year 1677 to year 2262:: >>> 1970 - 2 ** 63 / (10 ** 9 * 3600 * 24 * 365.25) 1677.728976954687 >>> 1970 + 2 ** 63 / (10 ** 9 * 3600 * 24 * 365.25) 2262.271023045313 Different types --------------- It was proposed to modify ``time.time()`` to use float type with better precision. The PEP 410 proposed to use ``decimal.Decimal``, but it was rejected. Apart ``decimal.Decimal``, no portable ``float`` type with better precision is currently available in Python. Changing the builtin Python ``float`` type is out of the scope of this PEP. Other ideas of new types were proposed to support larger or arbitrary precision: fractions, structures or 2-tuple using integers, fixed-precision floating point number, etc. See also the PEP 410 for a previous long discussion on other types. Adding a new type requires more effort to support it, than reusing ``int``. The standard library, third party code and applications would have to be modified to support it. The Python ``int`` type is well known, well supported, ease to manipulate, and supports all arithmetic operations like: ``dt = t2 - t1``. Moreover, using nanoseconds as integer is not new in Python, it's already used for ``os.stat_result`` and ``os.utime(ns=(atime_ns, mtime_ns))``. .. note:: If the Python ``float`` type becomes larger (ex: decimal128 or float128), the ``time.time()`` precision will increase as well. Different API ------------- The ``time.time(ns=False)`` API was proposed to avoid adding new functions. It's an uncommon (and bad?) programming practice in Python to change the result type depending on a parameter. Different options were proposed to allow the user to choose the time resolution. If each Python module uses a different resolution, it can become difficult to handle different resolutions, instead of just seconds (``time.time()`` returning ``float``) and nanoseconds (``time.time_ns()`` returning ``int``). Moreover, as written above, there is no need for resolution better than 1 nanosecond in practive in the Python standard library. Annex: Clocks Resolution in Python ================================== Script ot measure the smallest difference between two ``time.time()`` and ``time.time_ns()`` reads ignoring differences of zero:: import math import time LOOPS = 10 ** 6 print("time.time_ns(): %s" % time.time_ns()) print("time.time(): %s" % time.time()) min_dt = [abs(time.time_ns() - time.time_ns()) for _ in range(LOOPS)] min_dt = min(filter(bool, min_dt)) print("min time_ns() delta: %s ns" % min_dt) min_dt = [abs(time.time() - time.time()) for _ in range(LOOPS)] min_dt = min(filter(bool, min_dt)) print("min time() delta: %s ns" % math.ceil(min_dt * 1e9)) Results of time(), perf_counter() and monotonic(). Linux (kernel 4.12 on Fedora 26): * time_ns(): **84 ns** * time(): **239 ns** * perf_counter_ns(): 84 ns * perf_counter(): 82 ns * monotonic_ns(): 84 ns * monotonic(): 81 ns Windows 8.1: * time_ns(): **318000 ns** * time(): **894070 ns** * perf_counter_ns(): 100 ns * perf_counter(): 100 ns * monotonic_ns(): 15000000 ns * monotonic(): 15000000 ns The difference on ``time.time()`` is significant: **84 ns (2.8x better) vs 239 ns on Linux and 318 us (2.8x better) vs 894 us on Windows**. The difference (presion loss) will be larger next years since every day adds 864,00,000,000,000 nanoseconds to the system clock. The difference on ``time.perf_counter()`` and ``time.monotonic clock()`` is not visible in this quick script since the script runs less than 1 minute, and the uptime of the computer used to run the script was smaller than 1 week. A significant difference should be seen with an uptime of 104 days or greater. .. note:: Internally, Python starts ``monotonic()`` and ``perf_counter()`` clocks at zero on some platforms which indirectly reduce the precision loss. Copyright ========= This document has been placed in the public domain.

13 45

Interesting what version of python should I start with
by Bob Woolsey Nov. 2, 2017

Nov. 2, 2017

Sent from my iPhone

2 1

Migrate python-dev to Mailman 3?
by Victor Stinner Nov. 2, 2017

Nov. 2, 2017

Hi, We are using Mailman 3 for the new buildbot-status mailing list and it works well: https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/buildbot-status@python.org/ I prefer to read archives with this UI, it's simpler to follow threads, and it's possible to reply on the web UI! To be honest, we got some issues when the new security-announce mailing list was quickly migrated from Mailman 2 to Mailman 3, but issues were quicky fixed as well. Would it be possible to migrate python-dev to Mailman 3? Do you see any blocker issue? I sent to email to the Python postmaster as well. Victor

16 33

PEP 530
by London Nov. 1, 2017

Nov. 1, 2017

can you help me get idol for my computer

3 2

Review for bpo-30140: fix binop dispatch for subclasses
by Stephan Hoyer Nov. 1, 2017

Nov. 1, 2017

Hi python-dev, It's been over a month without any activity and over a week since my ping, and I'm still waiting for a review on my pull request: https://bugs.python.org/issue30140 https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/1325 I would greatly appreciate if someone has time to take a look. This is my first pull request to CPython. Thanks, Stephan

1 0