[Python-ideas] Ideas towards GIL removal
brett at python.org
Fri Apr 13 04:15:28 CEST 2007
On 4/12/07, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> I've been thinking about some ideas for reducing the
> amount of refcount adjustment that needs to be done,
> with a view to making GIL removal easier.
> 1) Permanent objects
> In a typical Python program there are many objects
> that are created at the beginning and exist for the
> life of the program -- classes, functions, literals,
> etc. Refcounting these is a waste of effort, since
> they're never going to go away.
In reality this is true, but obviously not technically true. You could
delete a class if you really wanted to. But obviously it rarely happens.
So perhaps there could be a way of marking such
> objects as "permanent" or "immortal". Any refcount
> operation on a permanent object would be a no-op,
> so no locking would be needed. This would also have
> the benefit of eliminating any need to write to the
> object's memory at all when it's only being read.
> 2) Objects owned by a thread
> Python code creates and destroys temporary objects
> at a high rate -- stack frames, argument tuples,
> intermediate results, etc. If the code is executed
> by a thread, those objects are rarely if ever seen
> outside of that thread. It would be beneficial if
> refcount operations on such objects could be carried
> out by the thread that created them without locking.
> To achieve this, two extra fields could be added
> to the object header: an "owning thread id" and a
> "local reference count". (The existing refcount
> field will be called the "global reference count"
> in what follows.)
> An object created by a thread has its owning thread
> id set to that thread. When adjusting an object's
> refcount, if the current thread is the object's owning
> thread, the local refcount is updated without locking.
> If the object has no owning thread, or belongs to
> a different thread, the object is locked and the
> global refcount is updated.
> The object is considered garbage only when both
> refcounts drop to zero. Thus, after a decref, both
> refcounts would need to be checked to see if they
> are zero. When decrementing the local refcount and
> it reaches zero, the global refcount can be checked
> without locking, since a zero will never be written
> to it until it truly has zero non-local references
> I suspect that these two strategies together would
> eliminate a very large proportion of refcount-related
> activities requiring locking, perhaps to the point
> where those remaining are infrequent enough to make
> GIL removal practical.
I wonder what the overhead is going to be. If for every INCREF or DECREF
you have to check that an object is immortal or whether it is a thread-owned
object is going to incur at least an 'if' check, if not more. I wonder what
the performance hit is going to be.
And for the second idea, adding two more fields to every object might be
considered expensive by some in terms of memory.
Also, how would this scenario be handled: object foo is created in thread A
(does it have a local-thread refcount of 1, a global of 1, or are both 1?),
is passed to thread B, and then DECREF'ed in thread B as the object is no
longer needed by anyone. If the local-thread refcount is 1 then this would
not work as it would fail with the global refcount already at 0. But if
objects start with a global refcount of 1 but a local refcount of 0 and it
is DECREF'ed locally then wouldn't that fail for the same reason? I guess I
am wondering how refcounts would be handled when objects cross between
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-ideas