Objects with both `__slots__` and `__dict__` have much larger size than needed (up to 4x) on Python 3.13
Ninguém assumiu esta issue ainda.
- Linguagem predominante
- Python
- Estrelas
- 77.2k
- Forks
- 35.9k
- Métricas de merge de PRs
- Métricas de PR pendentes
Descrição
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
Guia de contribuição
Primeiros passos
- Leia a issue inteira e depois o guia de contribuição do projeto.
- Comente na issue dizendo que vai assumir — evita que duas pessoas façam o mesmo trabalho.
- Faça um fork do repositório e trabalhe em uma branch.
- Abra um pull request que referencie o número da issue.
Direção de pesquisa
Comece pelas alterações no layout de objetos descritas em Objects/object_layout.md e reproduza o problema usando as classes slots/dict fornecidas com tracemalloc no Python 3.13 e 3.12. Analise os PRs vinculados gh-135389 e gh-156656 e, em seguida, verifique se as instâncias mistas de slots-and-dict não incorrem mais no excesso de memória relatado, preservando os layouts demonstrados.
Escrita pelo modelo de indexação a partir do texto da issue.
Avaliação
- Stack de tecnologia
- python
- Domínio
- backend
- Tipo de issue
- Bug
- Dificuldade
- 4/5
- Tempo estimado
- 3-5 dias
- Status de atividade
- Estagnada
- Clareza
- Razoavelmente clara
- Facilidade para iniciantes
- 35/100