Objects with both `__slots__` and `__dict__` have much larger size than needed (up to 4x) on Python 3.13
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
Bug report
Bug description:
On Python 3.13, instances that have both __slots__ and __dict__ defined (e.g. through inheritance)
can have a size that is more than four times of that in previous Python versions (e.g. 3.12).
import tracemalloc
import gc
class _Point2D:
__slots__ = ("x", "y")
class Point3D_OnlySlots(_Point2D):
__slots__ = ("z",)
def __init__(self, x, y, z):
self.x, self.y, self.z = x, y, z
class Point3D_DictAndSlots(_Point2D):
def __init__(self, x, y, z):
self.x, self.y, self.z = x, y, z
class Point3D_OnlyDict:
def __init__(self, x, y, z):
self.x, self.y, self.z = x, y, z
gc.collect() # clear freelists
tracemalloc.start()
_ = [Point3D_OnlySlots(1, 2, 3) for _ in range(1_000_000)]
print(
f"1M Point3D (only __slots__) instances: {tracemalloc.get_traced_memory()[0]:_} bytes"
)
gc.collect() # clear freelists
tracemalloc.start()
_ = [Point3D_OnlyDict(1, 2, 3) for _ in range(1_000_000)]
print(
f"1M Point3D (only __dict__) instances: {tracemalloc.get_traced_memory()[0]:_} bytes"
)
gc.collect() # clear freelists
tracemalloc.start()
_ = [Point3D_DictAndSlots(1, 2, 3) for _ in range(1_000_000)]
print(
f"1M Point3D (__dict__ and __slots__) instances: {tracemalloc.get_traced_memory()[0]:_} bytes"
)
On python 3.13.3, this prints:
1M Point3D (only __slots__) instances: 64_448_792 bytes
1M Point3D (only __dict__) instances: 104_451_928 bytes
1M Point3D (__dict__ and __slots__) instances: 416_448_848 bytes
On python 3.12.11, this prints:
1M Point3D (only __slots__) instances: 64_448_792 bytes
1M Point3D (only __dict__) instances: 96_451_808 bytes
1M Point3D (__dict__ and __slots__) instances: 96_452_232 bytes
The apparent cause seems to be the object layout changes (see here)
which introduced inline values. It appears that these don't mesh well with __slots__.
Could this be because the inline values need to have a fixed offset?
What appears to cause the dramatic increase above is that having (nonempty) __slots__ will
trigger __dict__ materialization (size 30) as soon as a non-slot attribute is set. In contrast to the optimized "no slots" case, this dict doesn't shrink as more instances are created.
Of course, mixing __slots__ and __dict__ is not recommended, but it's a trap that can be easily fallen into.
For example, if forgetting to define __slots__ anywhere in a complex class hierarchy.
I'm unsure if I'm understanding exactly what's going on though. @markshannon perhaps you can shed some light on this?
Related: #115776, #115822
CPython versions tested on:
3.13
Operating systems tested on:
macOS
Linked PRs
- gh-135389
- gh-156656
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 les modifications de la disposition des objets décrites dans Objects/object_layout.md et reproduisez le problème avec les classes slots/dict fournies à l’aide de tracemalloc sur Python 3.13 et 3.12. Examinez les PRs liés gh-135389 et gh-156656, puis vérifiez que les instances mixtes slots-and-dict n’entraînent plus la surconsommation de mémoire signalée, tout en préservant les dispositions démontrées.
Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.
Évaluation
- Stack technique
- python
- Domaine
- backend
- Type d'issue
- Bug
- Difficulté
- 4/5
- Temps estimé
- 3-5 jours
- Activité
- À l'abandon
- Clarté
- Plutôt claire
- Accessibilité débutants
- 35/100