Using the unit tests as the PGO task has problems
Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.
- Langage dominant
- Python
- Étoiles
- 77.2k
- Forks
- 35.9k
- Métriques de merge des PR
- Métriques de PR en attente
Description
Feature or enhancement
Proposal:
When Python is compiled with --enabled-optimizations, which turns on PGO (program guided optimizations), the build will run a subset of the unit tests as the "task" to generate profile information. Included in the profile is information like counts of the taken side of a CPU conditional branch instructions. To get the best optimization, your PGO task should match the branch taken behavior of your real workloads.
Using the unit tests has the advantage that we have good code coverage in terms of executing most branches and code paths. It also has the advantage of being available without any external dependencies. It has the disadvantage that the code executed during unit tests is likely quite atypical of what's executed during real applications. Running the ./python -X perf -m test --pgo under the "perf" tool, I see the following results:
| Children | Self | Symbol |
|---|---|---|
| 97.39% | 21.16% | _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault |
| 34.37% | 2.39% | deduce_unreachable |
| 24.82% | 1.50% | _PyGC_Collect |
| 21.11% | 1.32% | gc_collect_region |
| 20.95% | 0.00% | gc_collect |
| 19.50% | 0.00% | py::gc_collect:/home/nas/src/cpython/Lib/test/support/init.py |
| 14.98% | 0.54% | PyObject_Vectorcall |
| 10.95% | 1.48% | dict_traverse |
| 7.57% | 0.00% | _PyPegen_run_parser_from_string |
| 7.46% | 0.00% | _PyPegen_run_parser |
| 7.46% | 0.00% | _PyPegen_parse |
| 7.33% | 0.24% | py::_make_iterencode.._iterencode_dict:/home/nas/src/cpython/Lib/json/encoder.py |
| 7.18% | 7.09% | visit_reachable |
| 6.43% | 0.02% | expression_rule |
| 6.13% | 0.00% | PyRun_StringFlags |
| 6.06% | 1.90% | _PyEval_Vector |
| 5.99% | 5.91% | visit_decref |
| 5.80% | 0.00% | builtin_eval |
| 5.66% | 0.04% | disjunction_rule |
This profile reveals a number of problems. First, a large fraction of time in spent in the cyclic GC. That's because the unit test framework calls test.support.gc_collect() before each test case. That function triggers three full GC collections. Other tests also call the GC explicitly. This is not behavior typical of a real program.
Also taking a lot of time are functions related to parsing and compiling Python code. Notice the builtin_eval() function, for example. I suspect that's mostly a result of using "doctest". Again, this would not be typical of real programs.
I think we should replace the PGO task with a program that more closely represents the behavior of real Python programs. There are at least two potential advantages: it could make the compiled Python binary faster for real programs, it could make our benchmark results less noisy since the compiler would be doing a better and most consistent job of generating optimal code.
Has this already been discussed elsewhere?
This is a minor feature, which does not need previous discussion elsewhere
Links to previous discussion of this feature:
No response
Linked PRs
- gh-130702
Guide de contribution
Ouvrir le guide de contribution
Par où commencer
- Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
- Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
- Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
- Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.
Piste de recherche
Commencez par examiner la tâche PGO actuelle de --enable-optimizations et la commande ./python -X perf -m test --pgo, notamment test.support.gc_collect dans Lib/test/support/init.py ainsi que les observations de profilage concernant Lib/json/encoder.py. Le travail sera terminé lorsqu’une charge de travail de remplacement représentative aura été définie et validée, puis que son profil et son impact sur les benchmarks auront été comparés à ceux de la tâche de tests unitaires existante.
Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.
Évaluation
- Stack technique
- python
- Domaine
- build-system, performance
- Type d'issue
- Fonctionnalité
- Difficulté
- 5/5
- Temps estimé
- Plus d'une semaine
- Activité
- À l'abandon
- Clarté
- Plutôt claire
- Accessibilité débutants
- 35/100