-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 748
Weakref support #1267
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
Weakref support #1267
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1267 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 86.25% 86.25%
=======================================
Files 1 1
Lines 291 291
=======================================
Hits 251 251
Misses 40 40
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
||
public static int tp_init(IntPtr ob, IntPtr args, IntPtr kwds) | ||
{ | ||
Exceptions.SetArgsAndCause(ob); |
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, move the original comment 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.
What comment?
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.
NIT: You seem to have moved this from CLRObject
, and removed
// Fix the BaseException args (and __cause__ in case of Python 3)
// slot if wrapping a CLR exception
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.
The comment on SetArgsAndCause
won't be enough?
@@ -2123,6 +2131,16 @@ internal static void Py_CLEAR(ref IntPtr ob) | |||
ob = IntPtr.Zero; | |||
} | |||
|
|||
internal static unsafe void Py_SETREF(IntPtr ob, int offset, IntPtr target) |
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.
This seem to be silently stealing a reference to target
. I'd prefer it to explicitly take NewReference
or ref NewReference
(to clear the original variable), or take BorrowedReference
and IncRef
here.
Ideally, I would also check ob
and offset
for sanity.
Also, this really should also be outside the Runtime
class, but I am not sure where is best to put 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.
The original version is the C macro, the implementation used pointer offset, maybe is not suited for such a high-level type to be involved. I want to keep such things simple, If you need that, maybe create a high-level wrapper.😓
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.
NewReference
is not high-level. It is just a struct.
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.
Then you have to pull the pointer and add an offset, what a tortuous path.
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.
It is better, than accidentally forgetting to incref the target
in the caller.
src/runtime/metatype.cs
Outdated
//TypeManager.CopySlot(base_type, type, TypeOffset.tp_dealloc); | ||
|
||
// Hmm - the standard subtype_traverse, clear look at ob_size to | ||
// do things, so to allow gc to work correctly we need to move | ||
// our hidden handle out of ob_size. Then, in theory we can | ||
// comment this out and still not crash. | ||
TypeManager.CopySlot(base_type, type, TypeOffset.tp_traverse); | ||
TypeManager.CopySlot(base_type, type, TypeOffset.tp_clear); | ||
|
||
//TypeManager.CopySlot(base_type, type, TypeOffset.tp_traverse); | ||
//TypeManager.CopySlot(base_type, type, TypeOffset.tp_clear); |
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, remove dead code entirely.
Can you also comment why is this no longer necessary?
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.
These slots can inherit from the base type automatically. Emmm, I can add some comments here, but it still needs the dead code comment as an explanation.
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.
The comment above also seems dangerously wrong.
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.
Hmmm, that was an old comment, that time before we unify the shutdown progresses, it can't and won't use tp_traverse and tp_clear. Seems it can be removed at one time.
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.
Any dead code should be removed immediately.
src/runtime/runtime.cs
Outdated
@@ -1991,6 +1996,9 @@ internal static IntPtr PyType_GenericAlloc(IntPtr type, long n) | |||
[DllImport(_PythonDll, CallingConvention = CallingConvention.Cdecl)] | |||
internal static extern void PyObject_GC_UnTrack(IntPtr tp); | |||
|
|||
[DllImport(_PythonDll, CallingConvention = CallingConvention.Cdecl)] | |||
internal static extern void PyObject_ClearWeakRefs(IntPtr obj); |
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.
We should try to use *Reference
types for clarity for all new PInvoke 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.
That makes sense, but can we just replace them all at once.😅
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.
@amos402 are you prepared to make this happen? )
src/runtime/runtime.cs
Outdated
@@ -1982,6 +1984,9 @@ internal static IntPtr PyType_GenericAlloc(IntPtr type, long n) | |||
[DllImport(_PythonDll, CallingConvention = CallingConvention.Cdecl)] | |||
internal static extern IntPtr _PyObject_GetDictPtr(IntPtr obj); | |||
|
|||
[DllImport(_PythonDll, CallingConvention = CallingConvention.Cdecl)] | |||
internal static extern IntPtr _PyObject_GC_Calloc(IntPtr basicsize); |
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.
It is a very bad idea to use private function. Why is it required? Can the same be done with only public 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'm afraid there's no such public function now, it's required to allocate a custom size Python GC object.
|
||
Marshal.WriteIntPtr(type, TypeOffset.tp_base, py_type); | ||
IntPtr type = Runtime._PyObject_GC_Calloc(new IntPtr(metaSize)); |
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.
Specifically, can we use PyType_FromSpec
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.
Maybe not, PyType_FromSpec
still use PyType_Type
to allocate memory, which means it would occur the same problem as before.
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.
Actually, I think I solved this one. Please see 9682dc6
So you should not need _PyObject_GC_Calloc
anymore.
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.
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.
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.
It's not about the type size which the MetaType can generate. It's about the size of MetaType itself. You can't create the MetaType by using PyType_GenericAlloc(PyTypeType, 0)
, unless you
old_size = PyTypeType.tp_basicsize;
PyTypeType.tp_basicsize += x;
PyType_GenericAlloc(PyTypeType, 0);
PyTypeType.tp_basicsize = old_size;
As long as it claimed itself as a managed type, it should have a slot indicate the place of its instances where the related GCHandle would be stored. As for now, the MetaType doesn't attach any C# object, so it remains 0. Look back to the master, if you put the PyCLRMetaType to GetManagedObject
, actually it would read the memory it should not read(the part of the reserved tp_itemsize
). The code doesn't explicitly call something like that, but something may trigger it does, like domain reload may visit it through PyVisit. Even it won't crash right now, but it's hard to say that's a kind of sanity code.
Of course, you can just remove the Manged flag from PyCLRMetaType to avoid that. But I suggest following the old rule: the type of a CLR type is a managed type.
Another approach is to allocate with PyObject_Malloc, but that means it has to be initialized manually, e.g. call _Py_NewReference
manually on debug version, add it to GCTrack.
Nevertheless, the point is, the type must clarify itself what's itself and what it can do, that commit avoided some problems, but didn't solve completely.
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.
As far as I can see, CLR Metatype does not contain GCHandle
, so it does not need GetManagedObject
to work on its instances. So I think my implementation linked above is correct. Perhaps PyCLRMetaType
should not be a managed object then?
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.
It indeed has a bit of struggle with that, the PyCLRMetaType it's the ancestor of all managed types, if it claimed it's not a managed type, it against the commonsense. Currently, it doesn't need to be bound with a clr instance even it can. Well, just an identity 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 it makes sense, that CLR metatype is not a managed type. In my mind managed type == type, whose implementation is managed == has a managed object, that implements functionality == has GCHandle
pointing to that object. CLR metatype does not have a GCHandle
.
* Add Size field to TypeOffset * Replenish lacked used offset
// XXX: Use field to trick the public property finding | ||
public readonly int Size; | ||
|
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.
Why do you think this is better, than the single line you removed from ABI.cs? This is hacky and uses reflection.
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.
It's not related to that line, the reason for removing that line just because was because that's not the fixed slot anymore.
Well, it was just need something to store the size, tp_basicsize might capable do that too, this part can be improved.
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.
This field has the same purpose and value as the one you removed from ABI - sizeof(PyTypeObject)
src/embed_tests/TestClass.cs
Outdated
public void WeakRefForClrObject() | ||
{ | ||
var obj = new MyClass(); | ||
using (var scope = Py.CreateScope()) |
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.
NIT: use C# 9 using syntax
src/runtime/metatype.cs
Outdated
//TypeManager.CopySlot(base_type, type, TypeOffset.tp_dealloc); | ||
|
||
// Hmm - the standard subtype_traverse, clear look at ob_size to | ||
// do things, so to allow gc to work correctly we need to move | ||
// our hidden handle out of ob_size. Then, in theory we can | ||
// comment this out and still not crash. | ||
TypeManager.CopySlot(base_type, type, TypeOffset.tp_traverse); | ||
TypeManager.CopySlot(base_type, type, TypeOffset.tp_clear); | ||
|
||
//TypeManager.CopySlot(base_type, type, TypeOffset.tp_traverse); | ||
//TypeManager.CopySlot(base_type, type, TypeOffset.tp_clear); |
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.
Any dead code should be removed immediately.
src/runtime/metatype.cs
Outdated
public IntPtr ClrHandleOffset; | ||
public IntPtr ClrHandle; |
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.
These two refer to different handles, yet are named similarly, which is confusing.
Besides, in C# 9 we can start using nint
instead of IntPtr
for non-pointers.
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.
What name do you prefer?
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.
This is just a NIT. Maybe TypeClrHandle
and InstanceClrHandleOffset
?
IntPtr op = typeof(Exception).IsAssignableFrom(ob.GetType()) ? | ||
Exceptions.GetExceptHandle((Exception)ob) | ||
: CLRObject.GetInstHandle(ob); |
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 feel like Exceptions.GetExceptionHandle
should be built into CLRObject.GetInstHandle
.
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.
The exception object is a special case, we should keep it outside from the generic case GetInstHandle
, for example, if it has multiple special cases instead of one, you won't want to contaminate the CLRObject methods, right? Just like I removed the special case code from the CLRObject's constructor.
if (obj.RefCount > 1) | ||
{ | ||
obj.FreeGCHandle(); | ||
Marshal.WriteIntPtr(obj.pyHandle, ObjectOffset.magic(obj.tpHandle), IntPtr.Zero); | ||
} |
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.
Why can't you do this unconditionally? This condition makes reasoning about the state much harder.
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.
If obj.RefCount == 1
, the next XDecref
would dealloc the obj, thus it's no need to call these things.
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.
Is this similar to tp_clear
in any way? I would suggest to extract these two updates (FreeGCHandle
and zeroing out) into a method.
The point being tp_clear
has certain semantics, so it is easier to understand code containing a call to it, rather than has same actions inline.
Also, if RefCount
will correctly return 0, I'd move this if
below.
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.
Not exactly, tp_clear
is used to clear the Python object reference in order to break reference cycles. These codes are used to disconnect the relation between Python and clr, if the RefCount reached 0, their relation would naturally be gone.
Their relation needs to be kept if RefCount > 1 because in tp_dealloc
, it needs to obtain the bound object.
tp_dealloc
didn't zero out the handle because this chunk of memory would be freed soon after tp_dealloc
, extract these into a method is not really necessary.
Since after dealloc the memory may be released, the if
scope cannot move to below.
|
||
Marshal.WriteIntPtr(type, TypeOffset.tp_base, py_type); | ||
IntPtr type = Runtime._PyObject_GC_Calloc(new IntPtr(metaSize)); |
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.
As far as I can see, CLR Metatype does not contain GCHandle
, so it does not need GetManagedObject
to work on its instances. So I think my implementation linked above is correct. Perhaps PyCLRMetaType
should not be a managed object then?
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 it is good, except the _PyObject_GC_Calloc
, which should be replaced as suggested.
if (obj.RefCount > 1) | ||
{ | ||
obj.FreeGCHandle(); | ||
Marshal.WriteIntPtr(obj.pyHandle, ObjectOffset.magic(obj.tpHandle), IntPtr.Zero); | ||
} |
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.
Is this similar to tp_clear
in any way? I would suggest to extract these two updates (FreeGCHandle
and zeroing out) into a method.
The point being tp_clear
has certain semantics, so it is easier to understand code containing a call to it, rather than has same actions inline.
Also, if RefCount
will correctly return 0, I'd move this if
below.
|
||
Marshal.WriteIntPtr(type, TypeOffset.tp_base, py_type); | ||
IntPtr type = Runtime._PyObject_GC_Calloc(new IntPtr(metaSize)); |
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 it makes sense, that CLR metatype is not a managed type. In my mind managed type == type, whose implementation is managed == has a managed object, that implements functionality == has GCHandle
pointing to that object. CLR metatype does not have a GCHandle
.
I believe this has been superseded by one of the major changes in 3.0. This works on the latest master: >>> import clr
>>> from System import Uri
>>> u = Uri('http://ddg.com')
>>> import weakref
>>> weak = weakref.ref(u)
>>> u
<System.Uri object at 0x000001ED729D8240>
>>> u.ToString()
'http://ddg.com/'
>>> weak().ToString()
'http://ddg.com/' |
this was missed when pythonnet#1267 was superseded
this was missed when #1267 was superseded
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
pyHandle
andtpHandle
inManagedType
, the usage ofobj.tpHandle == obj.tpHandle
represents theobj
as aClassBase
itself is no need anymoreweakref
can be used for CLR objectSolved the problem that the code like as above would occur a crash because the slot of weakref and the slot of clr handle was overlapping.
4. Minor refactor of
SlotsHolder
Does this close any currently open issues?
#1219 (comment)
Any other comments?
...
Checklist
Check all those that are applicable and complete.
AUTHORS
CHANGELOG