Skip to content

gh-134728: Don't deopt due to eval breaker in _TIER2_RESUME_CHECK #134729

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

gh-134728: Don't deopt due to eval breaker in _TIER2_RESUME_CHECK #134729

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

Fidget-Spinner
Copy link
Member

@Fidget-Spinner Fidget-Spinner commented May 26, 2025 •
edited
Loading

On this benchmark (unscientific, noisy) https://gricad-gitlab.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/augierpi/augierpi.gricad-pages.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/-/blob/branch/default/content/docs/2025/about-py-jit/bench_loops_sum.py, I get the following results:

Before:
Number of long_calcul per second: 76.45 ± 1.19

After:
Number of long_calcul per second: 83.88 ± 10.10

So nearly a 10% improvement!

@bedevere-app bedevere-app bot mentioned this pull request May 26, 2025
Open
@Fidget-Spinner Fidget-Spinner requested review from brandtbucher and tomasr8 and removed request for markshannon May 26, 2025 15:14
tomasr8
tomasr8 reviewed May 26, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@tomasr8 tomasr8 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the review request! I have two comments :)

Python/bytecodes.c
Comment on lines +5403 to +5406
if (eval_breaker & _PY_EVAL_EVENTS_MASK) {
int err = _Py_HandlePending(tstate);
ERROR_IF(err != 0);
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just throwing this out there since I don't yet know enough about these specific instructions, but with this change,
_TIER2_RESUME_CHECK is now looking quite similar to _CHECK_PERIODIC. Is there any way we can combine them? Or do we need to keep them separate?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Possibly could replace _TIER2_RESUME_CHECK with _CHECK_PERIODIC.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok I think maybe not, the assertions in TIER2_RESUME_CHECK are different.

tomasr8
tomasr8 approved these changes May 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@tomasr8 tomasr8 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Again, I don't fully understand this part so my approval doesn't count for much, but the changes look good to me, judging by what we have in _CHECK_PERIODIC and _CHECK_PERIODIC_IF_NOT_YIELD_FROM :)

Btw, Mark left a comment on the issue: #134728 (comment), not sure if you've seen it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@tomasr8 tomasr8 tomasr8 approved these changes

@brandtbucher brandtbucher Awaiting requested review from brandtbucher

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
awaiting core review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@Fidget-Spinner @tomasr8