python / python/cpython

GC - long_lived_pending is not decremented when a generation-2 object's ref count goes to 0

Đang mở
#122,569 1 bình luận 0 reaction 1 người được giao Xem trên GitHub

@pablogsal đang làm issue này rồi.

Từ ngày 17/2/2025.

interpreter-core performance type-bug
Ngôn ngữ chính
Python
Star
77.2k
Fork
35.9k
Chỉ số merge pull request
Chỉ số pull request đang chờ

Mô tả

Bug report

Bug description:

Given the idea and documentation around the long_lived_pending / long_lived_total > 0.25 check, I would expect long_lived_pending to be the total number of objects that (1) have survived a generation-1 collection, and (2) are still live (i.e., ref count has not been decremented to 0).

From the behavior I'm seeing, I think only (1) is true. The example code below is contrived to promote many objects into generation-2 and then cause them to be deleted by their ref counts being decremented to 0. Hence there is no reason for Python to perform a generation-2 collection. Nevertheless, it does so repeatedly, collecting nothing each time. This seems sub-optimal, since these collections are expensive and are not doing anything.

import gc
import time
from typing import Any

class Temp:
  pass

accumulating_list = []

def gc_callback(phase: str, info: dict[str, Any]) -> None:
  generation = info['generation']
  if generation == 2:
    print(phase, info, len(gc.get_objects(2)))
  if phase == "stop" and generation == 1:
    # The GC that just ended will have promoted most of the Temps in
    # accumulating_list into generation-2. Drop references to to them here,
    # causing them to be immediately deleted.
    accumulating_list.clear()

gc.callbacks.append(gc_callback)
gc.set_threshold(10, 2, 2)

for x in range(100000):
  accumulating_list.append(Temp())
  time.sleep(0.001)

Is it working as intended that long_lived_pending is not decremented when a corresponding object is deleted by its ref count dropping to 0? This would avoid generation-2 collections except where actually useful. It feels to me like this should happen, although perhaps it's infeasible or too expensive?

Note: Although this is a contrived example, we are seeing this in a real world largeish Python program. It's exacerbated by the default GC thresholds being set really low, which results in even short-lived objects (measured by time) being promoted quickly into generation-2.

CPython versions tested on:

3.11

Operating systems tested on:

macOS

Hướng dẫn đóng góp

Mở hướng dẫn đóng góp

Bắt đầu từ đâu

  1. Đọc hết issue, rồi đọc hướng dẫn đóng góp của dự án.
  2. Bình luận trên issue rằng bạn sẽ nhận — tránh hai người làm cùng một việc.
  3. Fork repository và làm thay đổi trên một nhánh.
  4. Mở pull request có tham chiếu số hiệu của issue.

Đánh giá

Issue này chưa được đánh giá.

Nhận issue mới trong hộp thư của bạn

Bản tóm tắt ngắn những issue GitHub phù hợp với người mới.