[Python-Dev] Timeout for PEP 550 / Execution Context discussion

Nathaniel Smith njs at pobox.com
Mon Oct 16 01:26:43 EDT 2017


On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Stage 1. A new execution context PEP to solve the problem *just for
>> > async code*.  The PEP will target Python 3.7 and completely ignore
>> > synchronous generators and asynchronous generators.  It will be based
>> > on PEP 550 v1 (no chained lookups, immutable mapping or CoW as an
>> > optimization) and borrow some good API decisions from PEP 550 v3+
>> > (contextvars module, ContextVar class).  The API (and C-API) will be
>> > designed to be future proof and ultimately allow transition to the
>> > stage 2.
>>
>> If you want to ignore generators/async generators, then I think you
>> don't even want PEP 550 v1, you just want something like a
>> {set,get}_context_state API that lets you access the ThreadState's
>> context dict (or rather, an opaque ContextState object that holds the
>> context dict), and then task schedulers can call them at appropriate
>> moments.
>
>
> Yes, that's what I meant by "ignoring generators". And I'd like there to be
> a "current context" that's a per-thread MutableMapping with ContextVar keys.
> Maybe there's not much more to it apart from naming the APIs for getting and
> setting it? To be clear, I am fine with this being a specific subtype of
> MutableMapping. But I don't see much benefit in making it more abstract than
> that.

We don't need it to be abstract (it's fine to have a single concrete
mapping type that we always use internally), but I think we do want it
to be opaque (instead of exposing the MutableMapping interface, the
only way to get/set specific values should be through the ContextVar
interface). The advantages are:

- This allows C level caching of values in ContextVar objects (in
particular, funneling mutations through a limited API makes cache
invalidation *much* easier)

- It gives us flexibility to change the underlying data structure
without breaking API, or for different implementations to make
different choices -- in particular, it's not clear whether a dict or
HAMT is better, and it's not clear whether a regular dict or
WeakKeyDict is better.

The first point (caching) I think is the really compelling one: in
practice decimal and numpy are already using tricky caching code to
reduce the overhead of accessing the ThreadState dict, and this gets
even trickier with context-local state which has more cache
invalidation points, so if we don't do this in the interpreter then it
could actually become a blocker for adoption. OTOH it's easy for the
interpreter itself to do this caching, and it makes everyone faster.

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list