[issue21233] Add *Calloc functions to CPython memory allocation API

[STINNER Victor]

STINNER Victor added the comment:

It looks like Windows supports also lazy initialization of memory pages initialized to zero.

According to my microbenchmark on Linux and Windows, only bytes(n) and bytearray(n) are really faster with use_calloc.patch. Most changes of use_calloc.patch are maybe useless since all bytes are initilized to zero, but just after that they are replaced with new bytes.

Results of bench_alloc2.py on Windows 7: original vs calloc-4.patch+use_calloc.patch:

Common platform:
Timer: time.perf_counter
Python unicode implementation: PEP 393
Bits: int=32, long=32, long long=64, size_t=32, void*=32
Platform: Windows-7-6.1.7601-SP1
CFLAGS: None
Timer info: namespace(adjustable=False, implementation='QueryPerformanceCounter(
)', monotonic=True, resolution=1e-08)

Platform of campaign orig:
SCM: hg revision=4b97092aa4bd branch=default date="2014-04-27 18:02 +0100"
Date: 2014-04-28 09:35:30
Python version: 3.5.0a0 (default, Apr 28 2014, 09:33:30) [MSC v.1600 32 bit (Int
el)]
Timer precision: 4.47 us

Platform of campaign calloc:
SCM: hg revision=4f0aaa8804c6 tag=tip branch=default date="2014-04-28 09:27 +020
0"
Date: 2014-04-28 09:37:37
Python version: 3.5.0a0 (default:4f0aaa8804c6, Apr 28 2014, 09:37:03) [MSC v.160
0 32 bit (Intel)]
Timer precision: 4.44 us

-----------------------+-------------+----------------
Tests                  |        orig |          calloc
-----------------------+-------------+----------------
object()               |  121 ns (*) |   109 ns (-10%)
b'A' * 10              |   77 ns (*) |           79 ns
b'A' * 10**3           |  159 ns (*) |    168 ns (+5%)
b'A' * 10**6           |  428 us (*) |          415 us
'A' * 10               |   87 ns (*) |           89 ns
'A' * 10**3            |  175 ns (*) |          177 ns
'A' * 10**6            |  429 us (*) |    454 us (+6%)
'A' * 10**8            | 48.4 ms (*) |           49 ms
(None,) * 10**0        |   49 ns (*) |           51 ns
(None,) * 10**1        |  115 ns (*) |    99 ns (-14%)
(None,) * 10**2        |  433 ns (*) |          422 ns
(None,) * 10**3        | 3.58 us (*) |         3.57 us
(None,) * 10**4        | 34.9 us (*) |         34.9 us
(None,) * 10**5        |  347 us (*) |          351 us
(None,) * 10**6        | 5.14 ms (*) |   4.85 ms (-6%)
(None,) * 10**7        | 53.2 ms (*) |   50.2 ms (-6%)
(None,) * 10**8        |  563 ms (*) |    515 ms (-9%)
([None] * 10)[1:-1]    |  217 ns (*) |          217 ns
([None] * 10**3)[1:-1] | 3.89 us (*) |         3.92 us
([None] * 10**6)[1:-1] | 5.13 ms (*) |         5.17 ms
([None] * 10**8)[1:-1] |  634 ms (*) |   533 ms (-16%)
bytes(10)              |  193 ns (*) |    206 ns (+7%)
bytes(10**3)           |  266 ns (*) |   296 ns (+12%)
bytes(10**6)           |  414 us (*) |  3.89 us (-99%)
bytes(10**8)           | 44.2 ms (*) | 4.56 us (-100%)
bytearray(10)          |  229 ns (*) |    243 ns (+6%)
bytearray(10**3)       |  301 ns (*) |   330 ns (+10%)
bytearray(10**6)       |  421 us (*) |  3.89 us (-99%)
bytearray(10**8)       | 44.4 ms (*) | 4.56 us (-100%)
-----------------------+-------------+----------------
Total                  | 1.4 sec (*) | 1.16 sec (-17%)
-----------------------+-------------+----------------

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue21233>
_______________________________________