`METH_METHOD` calling convention is now not so efficient
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
- 主要语言
- Python
- 星标
- 77.2k
- 派生
- 36k
- PR 合并指标
- PR 指标待抓取
描述
Bug report
Bug description:
There are callables implemented with the METH_METHOD|METH_FASTCALL signature in C. They can be 5%-15% less efficient than using only METH_FASTCALL (or METH_O) with a PyType_GetModuleByDef function call.
For example, I measured the difference on Windows PGO builds by duplicating functions:
-
CDataType_from_buffer_copy()in_ctypes.c, which is not called when profiling:from timeit import timeit setup = """if 1: import ctypes buf = bytearray(16) cls = ctypes.c_char * len(buf) """ # with a warmup for _ in range(2): # METH_METHOD|METH_FASTCALL (as-is) r0 = timeit(s0 := f'cls.from_buffer_copy (buf)', setup) # METH_FASTCALL (no `defining_class`) + PyType_GetModuleByDef r1 = timeit(s1 := f'cls.from_buffer_copy1(buf)', setup) print(s0, r0, 1 + (1 - r0 / r0)) print(s1, r1, 1 + (1 - r1 / r0))cls.from_buffer_copy (buf) 0.15552800190635024 1.0 cls.from_buffer_copy1(buf) 0.13187471489945893 1.1520837837364741 -
dec_mpd_qquantize()in_decimal.cprofiled with 6800 calls (unfair?):# legacy (as-is) d1.quantize (d2) 0.1694609627971658 1.0 # METH_METHOD|METH_FASTCALL (`defining_class`) + _PyType_GetModuleState d1.quantize1(d2) 0.1408861404022900 1.168621857938327 # METH_FASTCALL (no `defining_class`) + PyType_GetModuleByDef d1.quantize2(d2) 0.1258157708973158 1.257553074049807Script (expand)
from timeit import timeit setup = """if 1: from _decimal import Decimal d1,d2 = Decimal(1.414), Decimal('0.01') """ for _ in range(2): r0 = timeit(s0 := f'd1.quantize (d2)', setup) r1 = timeit(s1 := f'd1.quantize1(d2)', setup) r2 = timeit(s2 := f'd1.quantize2(d2)', setup) print(s0, r0, 1 + (1 - r0 / r0)) print(s1, r1, 1 + (1 - r1 / r0)) print(s2, r2, 1 + (1 - r2 / r0))
Observations:
- The number of arguments had little to do with this.
- The gaps seem to be consistent as long as they are equally (un)exercised.
- The same goes for non-PGO builds and builtin modules (e.g.
_sre), where the impacts may be less significant.
CPython versions tested on:
CPython main branch
Operating systems tested on:
Windows
贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
调研方向
首先重现 _ctypes.c 中 CDataType_from_buffer_copy() 和 _decimal.c 中 dec_mpd_qquantize() 的报告基准,将 METH_METHOD|METH_FASTCALL 与 METH_FASTCALL 以及所示的模块查找调用进行比较。阅读 METH_METHOD 和 PyType_GetModuleByDef 入口点,然后定义并验证一种可接受的方法,确保其性能在所引用的各个案例中不差于替代方案。
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
评估
- 技术栈
- c, python
- 领域
- backend, performance
- Issue 类型
- 缺陷
- 难度
- 5/5
- 预计耗时
- 一周以上
- 活跃度
- 停滞
- 描述清晰度
- 需要澄清
- 新手友好度
- 25/100