-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.1k
gh-134761: Use deferred reference counting for threading
concurrency primitives
#134762
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
ZeroIntensity
wants to merge
6
commits into
python:main
Choose a base branch
from
ZeroIntensity:threading-scaling
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+82
−1
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e02137e
Use deferred reference counting for threading primitives.
ZeroIntensity 6093acb
Document and test sys._defer_refcount()
ZeroIntensity 478d482
Add blurb.
ZeroIntensity f0fc73c
Remove sys._defer_refcount() documentation.
ZeroIntensity d407ad9
Remove stray newline change.
ZeroIntensity c750d92
Move call to _PyObject_SetDeferredRefcount()
ZeroIntensity File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions
2
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2025-05-26-19-49-16.gh-issue-134761.LeMefI.rst
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | ||
Improve performance when using :mod:`threading` primitives across multiple | ||
threads. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please document it in
Doc/library/sys.rst
. If it "should not be used", add a clear explanation why it should not be used there. If it's not documented, the lack of documentation doesn't prevent users from using it.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See Ken and Donghee's comments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, I disageee with them. IMO we should document sys functions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would only be supportive of documenting this if we were allowed to change it in a minor version with no deprecation period. My understanding is that
PyUnstable
in the C API allows that, but exposing tosys._x
means we are stuck with at least 2 deprecation cycle and recommended 5 deprecation cycles. Users should not rely on this function in the first place except in very specific scenarios.One way to "bypass" this is make the function a no-op in future versions of Python once we solve this issue altogether. But I don't know what users will rely on by then so I'm a bit worried.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, I thought we were allowed to change
sys._x
things in minor versions without deprecation. If not, that's a problem.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we're getting a bit hung up on this point. We can add or remove the documentation for
_defer_refcount
later, it's not too important. Does everything else look fine here?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well I am preparing a better proposal for this approach. Give me hours.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, cool. Feel free to cc me on it.
Something we also need to consider is whether we want to address this for 3.14. Should this general idea be considered a bugfix or a feature?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See: #134819
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that this is improvement rather than bug fix.