Skip to content
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

Change PyMem_Malloc to use pymalloc allocator #70437

Closed
vstinner opened this issue Jan 31, 2016 · 51 comments
Closed

Change PyMem_Malloc to use pymalloc allocator #70437

vstinner opened this issue Jan 31, 2016 · 51 comments
Labels
performance Performance or resource usage

Comments

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

vstinner commented Jan 31, 2016

BPO 26249
Nosy @rhettinger, @pitrou, @vstinner, @serhiy-storchaka, @catalin-manciu
Files
  • pymem.patch
  • python_memleak.py
  • tu_malloc.c
  • pymem_27.patch
  • pymalloc.patch
  • Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.

    Show more details

    GitHub fields:

    assignee = None
    closed_at = <Date 2016-04-26.11:37:12.570>
    created_at = <Date 2016-01-31.17:48:24.357>
    labels = ['performance']
    title = 'Change PyMem_Malloc to use pymalloc allocator'
    updated_at = <Date 2016-04-26.11:37:12.569>
    user = 'https://github.com/vstinner'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2016-04-26.11:37:12.569>
    actor = 'vstinner'
    assignee = 'none'
    closed = True
    closed_date = <Date 2016-04-26.11:37:12.570>
    closer = 'vstinner'
    components = []
    creation = <Date 2016-01-31.17:48:24.357>
    creator = 'vstinner'
    dependencies = []
    files = ['41767', '41778', '41779', '42004', '42158']
    hgrepos = []
    issue_num = 26249
    keywords = ['patch']
    message_count = 51.0
    messages = ['259290', '259297', '259376', '259377', '259378', '259379', '259382', '259383', '259384', '259385', '259389', '259390', '259391', '259392', '259393', '259395', '259440', '259441', '259445', '260674', '260675', '260681', '261430', '261431', '261433', '261445', '261446', '261447', '261448', '261449', '261450', '261452', '261453', '261454', '261455', '261456', '261457', '261458', '261459', '261488', '261749', '261766', '261788', '264020', '264027', '264130', '264132', '264174', '264245', '264251', '264252']
    nosy_count = 8.0
    nosy_names = ['rhettinger', 'pitrou', 'vstinner', 'python-dev', 'jtaylor', 'serhiy.storchaka', 'alecsandru.patrascu', 'catalin.manciu']
    pr_nums = []
    priority = 'normal'
    resolution = 'fixed'
    stage = None
    status = 'closed'
    superseder = None
    type = 'performance'
    url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue26249'
    versions = ['Python 3.6']

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Jan 31, 2016

    The issue bpo-23601 showed speedup for the dict type by replacing PyMem_Malloc() with PyObject_Malloc() in dictobject.c.

    When I worked on the PEP-445, it was discussed to use the Python fast memory allocator for small memory allocations (<= 512 bytes), but I think that nobody tested on benchmark.

    So I open an issue to discuss that.

    By the way, we should also benchmark the Windows memory allocator which limits fragmentations. Maybe we can skip the Python small memory allocator on recent version of Windows?

    Attached patch implements the change. The main question is the speedup on various kinds of memory allocations (need a benchmark) :-)

    I will try to run benchmarks.

    --

    If the patch slows down Python, maybe we can investigate if some Python types (like dict) mostly uses "small" memory blocks (<= 512 bytes).

    @vstinner vstinner added the performance Performance or resource usage label Jan 31, 2016
    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Jan 31, 2016

    Ok, to avoid confusion, I opened an issue specific to Windows for its "Low-fragmentation Heap": issue bpo-26251.

    Other issues related to memory allocators.

    Merged:

    • issue bpo-21233: Add *Calloc functions to CPython memory allocation API (extension of the PEP-445, asked by numpy)
    • issue bpo-13483: Use VirtualAlloc to allocate memory arenas (implementation of the PEP-445)
    • issue bpo-3329: API for setting the memory allocator used by Python

    Open:

    • issue bpo-18835: Add aligned memory variants to the suite of PyMem functions/macros => this one is still open, the status is unclear :-/

    @pitrou
    Copy link
    Member

    pitrou commented Feb 2, 2016

    Hum, the point of PyMem_Malloc() is that it's distinct from PyObject_Malloc(), right? Why would you redirect one to the other?

    @pitrou
    Copy link
    Member

    pitrou commented Feb 2, 2016

    (of course, we might question why we have two different families of allocation APIs...)

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    Hum, the point of PyMem_Malloc() is that it's distinct from PyObject_Malloc(), right? Why would you redirect one to the other?

    For performances.

    (of course, we might question why we have two different families of allocation APIs...)

    That's the real question: why does Python have PyMem family? Is it still justified in 2016?

    --

    Firefox uses jemalloc to limit the fragmentation of the heap memory. Once I spent a lot of time to try to understand the principle of fragmentation, and in my tiny benchmarks, jemalloc was *much* better than system allocator. By the way, jemalloc scales well on multiple threads ;-)

    My notes on heap memory fragmentation: http://haypo-notes.readthedocs.org/heap_fragmentation.html

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    About heap memory fragmentation, see also my attached two "benchmarks" in Python and C: python_memleak.py and tu_malloc.c.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    So, I ran ssh://hg@hg.python.org/benchmarks with my patch. It looks like some benchmarks are up to 4% faster:

    $ python3 -u perf.py ../default/python.orig ../default/python.pymem

    INFO:root:Automatically selected timer: perf_counter
    [ 1/10] 2to3...
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem lib3/2to3/2to3 -f all lib/2to3
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem lib3/2to3/2to3 -f all lib/2to3 1 time
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig lib3/2to3/2to3 -f all lib/2to3
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig lib3/2to3/2to3 -f all lib/2to3 1 time
    [ 2/10] chameleon_v2...
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem performance/bm_chameleon_v2.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig performance/bm_chameleon_v2.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter
    [ 3/10] django_v3...
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem performance/bm_django_v3.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig performance/bm_django_v3.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter
    [ 4/10] fastpickle...
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem performance/bm_pickle.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter --use_cpickle pickle
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig performance/bm_pickle.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter --use_cpickle pickle
    [ 5/10] fastunpickle...
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem performance/bm_pickle.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter --use_cpickle unpickle
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig performance/bm_pickle.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter --use_cpickle unpickle
    [ 6/10] json_dump_v2...
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem performance/bm_json_v2.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig performance/bm_json_v2.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter
    [ 7/10] json_load...
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem performance/bm_json.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter json_load
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig performance/bm_json.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter json_load
    [ 8/10] nbody...
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem performance/bm_nbody.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig performance/bm_nbody.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter
    [ 9/10] regex_v8...
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem performance/bm_regex_v8.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig performance/bm_regex_v8.py -n 50 --timer perf_counter
    [10/10] tornado_http...
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.pymem performance/bm_tornado_http.py -n 100 --timer perf_counter
    INFO:root:Running ../default/python.orig performance/bm_tornado_http.py -n 100 --timer perf_counter

    Report on Linux smithers 4.3.3-300.fc23.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 5 23:31:01 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64
    Total CPU cores: 8

    ### 2to3 ###
    6.880090 -> 6.818911: 1.01x faster

    ### fastpickle ###
    Min: 0.453826 -> 0.442081: 1.03x faster
    Avg: 0.456499 -> 0.443978: 1.03x faster
    Significant (t=20.03)
    Stddev: 0.00370 -> 0.00242: 1.5293x smaller

    ### fastunpickle ###
    Min: 0.547908 -> 0.526027: 1.04x faster
    Avg: 0.554663 -> 0.528686: 1.05x faster
    Significant (t=15.95)
    Stddev: 0.00893 -> 0.00728: 1.2260x smaller

    ### json_dump_v2 ###
    Min: 2.733907 -> 2.627718: 1.04x faster
    Avg: 2.762473 -> 2.664675: 1.04x faster
    Significant (t=11.99)
    Stddev: 0.03796 -> 0.04341: 1.1435x larger

    ### regex_v8 ###
    Min: 0.042438 -> 0.042581: 1.00x slower
    Avg: 0.042805 -> 0.044078: 1.03x slower
    Significant (t=-2.12)
    Stddev: 0.00171 -> 0.00388: 2.2694x larger

    ### tornado_http ###
    Min: 0.254089 -> 0.246088: 1.03x faster
    Avg: 0.257046 -> 0.249033: 1.03x faster
    Significant (t=15.83)
    Stddev: 0.00401 -> 0.00310: 1.2930x smaller

    The following not significant results are hidden, use -v to show them:
    chameleon_v2, django_v3, json_load, nbody.

    real 19m13.413s
    user 18m50.024s
    sys 0m22.507s

    @YurySelivanov
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    YurySelivanov mannequin commented Feb 2, 2016

    On Feb 2, 2016, at 7:00 AM, STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

    So, I ran ssh://hg@hg.python.org/benchmarks with my patch. It looks like some benchmarks are up to 4% faster:

    Please use -r flag for perf.py

    @pitrou
    Copy link
    Member

    pitrou commented Feb 2, 2016

    It looks like some benchmarks are up to 4% faster:

    What this says is that some internals uses of PyMem_XXX should be replaced with PyObject_XXX.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    FYI benchmark result to compare Python with and without pymalloc (fast memory allocator for block <= 512 bytes). As expected, no pymalloc is slower, up to 30% slower (and it's never faster).

    Report on Linux smithers 4.3.3-300.fc23.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 5 23:31:01 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64
    Total CPU cores: 8

    ### 2to3 ###
    7.253671 -> 7.558993: 1.04x slower

    ### chameleon_v2 ###
    Min: 5.598481 -> 5.794526: 1.04x slower
    Avg: 5.714233 -> 5.922142: 1.04x slower
    Significant (t=-8.01)
    Stddev: 0.15956 -> 0.09048: 1.7636x smaller

    ### django_v3 ###
    Min: 0.574221 -> 0.606462: 1.06x slower
    Avg: 0.579659 -> 0.612088: 1.06x slower
    Significant (t=-28.44)
    Stddev: 0.00605 -> 0.00532: 1.1371x smaller

    ### fastpickle ###
    Min: 0.450852 -> 0.502645: 1.11x slower
    Avg: 0.455619 -> 0.513777: 1.13x slower
    Significant (t=-26.24)
    Stddev: 0.00696 -> 0.01404: 2.0189x larger

    ### fastunpickle ###
    Min: 0.544064 -> 0.696306: 1.28x slower
    Avg: 0.552459 -> 0.705372: 1.28x slower
    Significant (t=-85.52)
    Stddev: 0.00798 -> 0.00980: 1.2281x larger

    ### json_dump_v2 ###
    Min: 2.780312 -> 3.265531: 1.17x slower
    Avg: 2.830463 -> 3.370060: 1.19x slower
    Significant (t=-23.73)
    Stddev: 0.04190 -> 0.15521: 3.7046x larger

    ### json_load ###
    Min: 0.428893 -> 0.558956: 1.30x slower
    Avg: 0.431941 -> 0.569441: 1.32x slower
    Significant (t=-74.76)
    Stddev: 0.00791 -> 0.01033: 1.3060x larger

    ### regex_v8 ###
    Min: 0.043439 -> 0.044614: 1.03x slower
    Avg: 0.044388 -> 0.046487: 1.05x slower
    Significant (t=-4.95)
    Stddev: 0.00215 -> 0.00209: 1.0283x smaller

    ### tornado_http ###
    Min: 0.264603 -> 0.278840: 1.05x slower
    Avg: 0.270153 -> 0.285263: 1.06x slower
    Significant (t=-23.04)
    Stddev: 0.00489 -> 0.00436: 1.1216x smaller

    The following not significant results are hidden, use -v to show them:
    nbody.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    Test with jemalloc using the shell script "python.jemalloc":
    ---
    #!/bin/sh
    LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib64/libjemalloc.so /home/haypo/prog/python/default/python "$@"
    ---

    Memory consumption:
    python3 -u perf.py -m ../default/python ../default/python.jemalloc

    Report on Linux smithers 4.3.3-300.fc23.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 5 23:31:01 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64
    Total CPU cores: 8

    ### 2to3 ###
    Mem max: 43100.000 -> 220.000: 195.9091x smaller

    ### chameleon_v2 ###
    Mem max: 367276.000 -> 224.000: 1639.6250x smaller

    ### django_v3 ###
    Mem max: 24136.000 -> 284.000: 84.9859x smaller

    ### fastpickle ###
    Mem max: 8692.000 -> 284.000: 30.6056x smaller

    ### fastunpickle ###
    Mem max: 8704.000 -> 216.000: 40.2963x smaller

    ### json_dump_v2 ###
    Mem max: 10448.000 -> 216.000: 48.3704x smaller

    ### json_load ###
    Mem max: 8444.000 -> 220.000: 38.3818x smaller

    ### nbody ###
    Mem max: 7388.000 -> 220.000: 33.5818x smaller

    ### regex_v8 ###
    Mem max: 12764.000 -> 220.000: 58.0182x smaller

    ### tornado_http ###
    Mem max: 28216.000 -> 228.000: 123.7544x smaller


    Performance:

    Report on Linux smithers 4.3.3-300.fc23.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 5 23:31:01 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64
    Total CPU cores: 8

    ### 2to3 ###
    7.413484 -> 7.189792: 1.03x faster

    ### chameleon_v2 ###
    Min: 5.559697 -> 5.869468: 1.06x slower
    Avg: 5.672448 -> 6.033152: 1.06x slower
    Significant (t=-13.67)
    Stddev: 0.12098 -> 0.14203: 1.1740x larger

    ### nbody ###
    Min: 0.242194 -> 0.229747: 1.05x faster
    Avg: 0.244991 -> 0.235297: 1.04x faster
    Significant (t=9.75)
    Stddev: 0.00262 -> 0.00652: 2.4861x larger

    ### regex_v8 ###
    Min: 0.042532 -> 0.046920: 1.10x slower
    Avg: 0.043249 -> 0.047907: 1.11x slower
    Significant (t=-13.23)
    Stddev: 0.00180 -> 0.00172: 1.0503x smaller

    ### tornado_http ###
    Min: 0.265755 -> 0.274526: 1.03x slower
    Avg: 0.273617 -> 0.284186: 1.04x slower
    Significant (t=-6.67)
    Stddev: 0.00583 -> 0.01474: 2.5297x larger

    The following not significant results are hidden, use -v to show them:
    django_v3, fastpickle, fastunpickle, json_dump_v2, json_load.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    > It looks like some benchmarks are up to 4% faster:

    What this says is that some internals uses of PyMem_XXX should be replaced with PyObject_XXX.

    Why not changing PyMem_XXX to use the same fast allocator than PyObject_XXX? (as proposed in this issue)

    FYI we now also have the PyMem_RawXXX family :)

    @pitrou
    Copy link
    Member

    pitrou commented Feb 2, 2016

    Le 02/02/2016 15:47, STINNER Victor a écrit :

    2to3

    Mem max: 43100.000 -> 220.000: 195.9091x smaller

    chameleon_v2

    Mem max: 367276.000 -> 224.000: 1639.6250x smaller

    django_v3

    Mem max: 24136.000 -> 284.000: 84.9859x smaller

    These figures are not even remotely believable.
    It would make sense to investigate them before posting such numbers ;-)

    @pitrou
    Copy link
    Member

    pitrou commented Feb 2, 2016

    Le 02/02/2016 15:48, STINNER Victor a écrit :

    > What this says is that some internals uses of PyMem_XXX should be replaced with PyObject_XXX.

    Why not changing PyMem_XXX to use the same fast allocator than
    PyObject_XXX? (as proposed in this issue)

    Why have two sets of functions doing exactly the same thing?

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    These figures are not even remotely believable.

    To be honest, I didn't try to understand them :-) Are they the number of kB of the RSS memory?

    Maybe perf.py doesn't like my shell script?

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    Why have two sets of functions doing exactly the same thing?

    I have no idea.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    Test with jemalloc using the shell script "python.jemalloc":
    ---
    #!/bin/sh
    LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib64/libjemalloc.so /home/haypo/prog/python/default/python "$@"
    ---

    "perf.py -m" doesn't work with such bash script, but it works using exec:
    ---
    #!/bin/sh
    LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib64/libjemalloc.so exec /home/haypo/prog/python/default/python "$@"
    ---

    Memory consumption:
    python3 -u perf.py -m ../default/python ../default/python.jemalloc

    Hum, it looks like jemalloc uses *more* memory than libc memory allocators. I don't know if it's a known

    Report on Linux smithers 4.3.3-300.fc23.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 5 23:31:01 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64
    Total CPU cores: 8

    ### 2to3 ###
    Mem max: 43088.000 -> 43776.000: 1.0160x larger

    ### chameleon_v2 ###
    Mem max: 367028.000 -> 626324.000: 1.7065x larger

    ### django_v3 ###
    Mem max: 23824.000 -> 25120.000: 1.0544x larger

    ### fastpickle ###
    Mem max: 8696.000 -> 9712.000: 1.1168x larger

    ### fastunpickle ###
    Mem max: 8708.000 -> 9696.000: 1.1135x larger

    ### json_dump_v2 ###
    Mem max: 10488.000 -> 11556.000: 1.1018x larger

    ### json_load ###
    Mem max: 8444.000 -> 9396.000: 1.1127x larger

    ### nbody ###
    Mem max: 7392.000 -> 8416.000: 1.1385x larger

    ### regex_v8 ###
    Mem max: 12760.000 -> 13576.000: 1.0639x larger

    ### tornado_http ###
    Mem max: 28196.000 -> 29920.000: 1.0611x larger

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    (Crap. I sent an incomplete message, sorry about that.)

    Hum, it looks like jemalloc uses *more* memory than libc memory allocators. I don't know if it's a known

    I don't know if it's a known issue/property of jemalloc.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 2, 2016

    Yury: "Please use -r flag for perf.py"

    Oh, I didn't know this flag. Sure, I can do that.

    New benchmark using --rigorous to measure the performance of attached pymem.patch.

    It always seems faster, newer slower.

    Report on Linux smithers 4.3.3-300.fc23.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jan 5 23:31:01 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64
    Total CPU cores: 8

    ### 2to3 ###
    Min: 6.772531 -> 6.686245: 1.01x faster
    Avg: 6.875264 -> 6.726859: 1.02x faster
    Significant (t=3.44)
    Stddev: 0.09026 -> 0.03398: 2.6560x smaller

    ### django_v3 ###
    Min: 0.562797 -> 0.552539: 1.02x faster
    Avg: 0.591345 -> 0.557561: 1.06x faster
    Significant (t=4.17)
    Stddev: 0.07689 -> 0.02581: 2.9794x smaller

    ### fastpickle ###
    Min: 0.464270 -> 0.437667: 1.06x faster
    Avg: 0.467195 -> 0.442298: 1.06x faster
    Significant (t=10.59)
    Stddev: 0.01156 -> 0.02046: 1.7693x larger

    ### fastunpickle ###
    Min: 0.548834 -> 0.526554: 1.04x faster
    Avg: 0.554601 -> 0.539456: 1.03x faster
    Significant (t=4.67)
    Stddev: 0.01137 -> 0.03040: 2.6734x larger

    ### json_dump_v2 ###
    Min: 2.723152 -> 2.603108: 1.05x faster
    Avg: 2.749255 -> 2.693655: 1.02x faster
    Significant (t=2.89)
    Stddev: 0.03016 -> 0.18988: 6.2963x larger

    ### regex_v8 ###
    Min: 0.044256 -> 0.042201: 1.05x faster
    Avg: 0.044733 -> 0.043134: 1.04x faster
    Significant (t=4.55)
    Stddev: 0.00201 -> 0.00288: 1.4309x larger

    ### tornado_http ###
    Min: 0.253405 -> 0.247401: 1.02x faster
    Avg: 0.256274 -> 0.250380: 1.02x faster
    Significant (t=17.48)
    Stddev: 0.00285 -> 0.00382: 1.3430x larger

    The following not significant results are hidden, use -v to show them:
    chameleon_v2, json_load, nbody.

    @catalin-manciu
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    catalin-manciu mannequin commented Feb 22, 2016

    Hi all,

    Please find below the results from a complete GUPB run on a patched CPython 3.6. In average, an improvement of about 2.1% can be observed.

    I'm also attaching an implementation of the patch for CPython 2.7 and its benchmark results. On GUPB the average performance boost is 1.5%.
    In addition we are also seeing a 2.1% increase in throughput rate from our OpenStack Swift setup as measured by ssbench.

    Compared to my proposition in issue bpo-26382, this patch yields slightly better results for CPython 3.6, gaining an average of +0.36% on GUPB,
    and similar results for CPython 2.7.

    Hardware and OS configuration:
    ==============================
    Hardware: Intel XEON (Haswell-EP)

    BIOS settings: Intel Turbo Boost Technology: false
    Hyper-Threading: false

    OS: Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS

    OS configuration: Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) disabled to reduce run
    to run variation by echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space
    CPU frequency set fixed at 2.3GHz

    Repository info:
    ================
    CPython2 : 2d8e8d0e7162 (2.7)
    CPython3 : f9391e2b74a5 tip

    Results
    =======

    Table 1: CPython 3 GUPB results
    -------------------------------
    unpickle_list 22.74%
    mako_v2 9.13%
    nqueens 6.32%
    meteor_contest 5.61%
    fannkuch 5.34%
    simple_logging 5.28%
    formatted_logging 5.06%
    fastunpickle 4.37%
    json_dump_v2 3.10%
    regex_compile 3.01%
    raytrace 2.95%
    pathlib 2.43%
    tornado_http 2.22%
    django_v3 1.94%
    telco 1.65%
    pickle_list 1.59%
    chaos 1.50%
    etree_process 1.48%
    fastpickle 1.34%
    silent_logging 1.12%
    2to3 1.09%
    float 1.01%
    nbody 0.89%
    normal_startup 0.86%
    startup_nosite 0.79%
    richards 0.67%
    regex_v8 0.61%
    etree_generate 0.57%
    hexiom2 0.54%
    pickle_dict 0.20%
    call_simple 0.18%
    spectral_norm 0.17%
    regex_effbot 0.16%
    unpack_sequence 0.00%
    call_method_unknown -0.04%
    chameleon_v2 -0.07%
    json_load -0.08%
    etree_parse -0.09%
    pidigits -0.15%
    go -0.16%
    etree_iterparse -0.22%
    call_method_slots -0.49%
    call_method -0.97%

    Table 2: CPython 2 GUPB results
    -------------------------------
    unpickle_list 16.88%
    json_load 11.74%
    fannkuch 8.11%
    mako_v2 6.91%
    meteor_contest 6.27%
    slowpickle 4.81%
    nqueens 4.46%
    html5lib_warmup 3.53%
    chaos 2.67%
    regex_v8 2.56%
    html5lib 2.34%
    fastunpickle 2.32%
    tornado_http 2.23%
    rietveld 2.15%
    simple_logging 1.82%
    normal_startup 1.57%
    call_method_slots 1.53%
    telco 1.49%
    regex_compile 1.47%
    spectral_norm 1.36%
    hg_startup 1.27%
    regex_effbot 1.18%
    nbody 1.02%
    2to3 1.01%
    pybench 0.99%
    chameleon_v2 0.98%
    slowunpickle 0.93%
    startup_nosite 0.92%
    pickle_list 0.89%
    richards 0.56%
    django_v3 0.48%
    json_dump_v2 0.41%
    raytrace 0.38%
    unpack_sequence 0.00%
    float -0.05%
    slowspitfire -0.07%
    go -0.24%
    hexiom2 -0.26%
    spambayes -0.27%
    pickle_dict -0.30%
    etree_parse -0.32%
    pidigits -0.41%
    etree_iterparse -0.47%
    bzr_startup -0.55%
    fastpickle -0.74%
    etree_process -0.96%
    formatted_logging -1.01%
    call_simple -1.08%
    pathlib -1.12%
    silent_logging -1.22%
    etree_generate -1.23%
    call_method_unknown -2.14%
    call_method -2.22%

    Table 3: OpenStack Swift ssbench results
    ----------------------------------------
    ssbench 2.11%

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Feb 22, 2016

    Compared to my proposition in issue bpo-26382, this patch yields slightly better results for CPython 3.6, gaining an average of +0.36% on GUPB,
    and similar results for CPython 2.7.

    IMHO this change is too young to be backported to Python 2.7. I wrote it for Python 3.6 only. For Python 2.7, I suggest to write patches with narrow scope, as you did for the patch only modifying the list type.

    """
    Table 1: CPython 3 GUPB results
    -------------------------------
    unpickle_list 22.74%
    mako_v2 9.13%
    nqueens 6.32%
    meteor_contest 5.61%
    fannkuch 5.34%
    simple_logging 5.28%
    formatted_logging 5.06%
    """

    I surprised to see slow-down, but I prefer to think that changes smaller than 5% are pure noise.

    The good news is the long list of benchmarks with speedup larger than 5.0% :-) 22% on unpick list is nice to have too!

    @catalin-manciu
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    catalin-manciu mannequin commented Feb 22, 2016

    I've just posted the results to an OpenStack Swift benchmark run using the patch from my proposition, issue bpo-26382.
    Victor's patch, applied to CPython 2.7, adds an extra 1% compared to mine (which improved throughput by 1%), effectively doubling the performance gain. Swift is a highly complex real-world workload, so this result is quite significant.

    @vstinner vstinner changed the title Change PyMem_Malloc to use PyObject_Malloc allocator? Change PyMem_Malloc to use pymalloc allocator Mar 9, 2016
    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    I created the issue bpo-26516 "Add PYTHONMALLOC env var and add support for malloc debug hooks in release mode" to help developers to detect bugs in their code, especially misuse of the PyMem_Malloc() API.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    Patch 3:

    • Ooops, I updated pymem_api_misuse(), but I forgot to update the related unit test. It's now fixed.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    In february 2016, I started a thread on the python-dev mailing list:
    [Python-Dev] Modify PyMem_Malloc to use pymalloc for performance
    https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-February/143084.html

    M.-A. Lemburg wrote:

    """

    Do you see any drawback of using pymalloc for PyMem_Malloc()?

    Yes: You cannot free memory allocated using pymalloc with the
    standard C lib free().

    It would be better to go through the list of PyMem_() calls
    in Python and replace them with PyObject_
    () calls, where
    possible.

    Does anyone recall the rationale to have two families to memory allocators?

    The PyMem_*() APIs were needed to have a cross-platform malloc()
    implementation which returns standard C lib free()able memory,
    but also behaves well when passing 0 as size.
    """

    M.-A. Lemburg fears that the PyMem_Malloc() API is misused:

    """

    Sometimes, yes, but we also do allocations for e.g.
    parsing values in Python argument tuples (e.g. using
    "es" or "et"):

    https://docs.python.org/3.6/c-api/arg.html

    We do document to use PyMem_Free() on those; not sure whether
    everyone does this though.
    """

    M.-A. Lemburg suggested to the patch of this issue on:

    """
    Yes, but those are part of the stdlib. You'd need to check
    a few C extensions which are not tested as part of the stdlib,
    e.g. numpy, scipy, lxml, pillow, etc. (esp. ones which implement custom
    types in C since these will often need the memory management
    APIs).

    It may also be a good idea to check wrapper generators such
    as cython, swig, cffi, etc.
    """

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    numpy: good!

    Commands ran in numpy tests in a virtual environment:

    numpy$ python setup.py install
    numpy$ cd..
    $ python -c 'import numpy; numpy.test()'
    (...)
    Ran 6206 tests in 280.986s

    OK (KNOWNFAIL=7, SKIP=6)

    @pitrou
    Copy link
    Member

    pitrou commented Mar 9, 2016

    Victor, why do you insist on this instead of changing internal API calls in CPython?

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    Antoine Pitrou added the comment:

    Victor, why do you insist on this instead of changing internal API calls in CPython?

    https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-February/143097.html

    "There are 536 calls to the functions PyMem_Malloc(), PyMem_Realloc()
    and PyMem_Free()."

    @pitrou
    Copy link
    Member

    pitrou commented Mar 9, 2016

    "There are 536 calls to the functions PyMem_Malloc(), PyMem_Realloc()
    and PyMem_Free()."

    I'm sure you can use powerful tools such as "sed" ;-)

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    I'm sure you can use powerful tools such as "sed" ;-)

    I guess that PyMem functions are used in third party C extensions modules. I expect (minor) speedup in these modules too.

    I don't understand why we should keep a slow allocator if Python has a faster allocator?

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    lxml: good!

    • I patched Python 3.6 with pymem.patch of this issue + pymem-3.patch of issue bpo-26516
    • Tested lxml version: git commit 93ec66f6533995a7742278f9ba14b925149ac140 (Mar 8 2016)

    lxml$ make test
    (...)
    Ran 1735 tests in 27.663s

    OK

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    Pillow: good

    Note: I had to install JPEG headers (sudo dnf install -y libjpeg-turbo-devel).

    Tested version: git commit 555544c5cfc3874deaac9cfa87780822ee714c0d (Mar 8 2016).

    ---
    Pillow$ python setup.py install
    Pillow$ python selftest.py
    Pillow$ python test-installed.py
    (...)
    Ran 671 tests in 8.458s

    FAILED (SKIP=124, errors=2)
    ---

    The two errors are "OSError: decoder libtiff not available".

    @pitrou
    Copy link
    Member

    pitrou commented Mar 9, 2016

    Le 09/03/2016 18:01, STINNER Victor a écrit :

    I don't understand why we should keep a slow allocator if Python has a faster allocator?

    Define "slow". malloc() on Linux should be reasonably fast.

    Do you think it's reasonable to risk breaking external libraries just
    for a hypothetic "performance improvement"?

    Again, why don't you try simply changing internal calls?

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    Define "slow". malloc() on Linux should be reasonably fast.

    See first messages of this issue for benchmark results. Some specific benchmarks are faster, none is slower.

    Do you think it's reasonable to risk breaking external libraries just
    for a hypothetic "performance improvement"?

    Yes. It was discussed in the python-dev thread.

    @pitrou
    Copy link
    Member

    pitrou commented Mar 9, 2016

    Yes. It was discussed in the python-dev thread.

    I'm talking about the performance improvement in third-party libraries, not the performance improvement in CPython itself which can be addressed by replacing the internal API calls.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    I'm talking about the performance improvement in third-party libraries, not the performance improvement in CPython itself which can be addressed by replacing the internal API calls.

    Oh ok. I don't know how to measure the performance of third-party libraries. I expect no speedup or a little speedup, but no slow-down.

    Do you think it's reasonable to risk breaking external libraries just
    for a hypothetic "performance improvement"?

    The question is if my change really breaks anything in practice. I'm testing some popular C extensions to prepare an answer. Early results is that developer use correctly the Python allocator API :-)

    I disagree on the fact that my change breaks any API. The API doc is clear. For example, you must use PyMem_Free() on memory allocated by PyMem_Malloc(). If you use free(), it fails badly with Python compiled in debug mode.

    My issue bpo-26516 "Add PYTHONMALLOC env var and add support for malloc debug hooks in release mode" may help developers to validate their own application.

    I suggest you to continue the discussion on python-dev for a wider audience. I will test a few more projects before replying on the python-dev thread.

    @pitrou
    Copy link
    Member

    pitrou commented Mar 9, 2016

    Le 09/03/2016 18:27, STINNER Victor a écrit :

    I disagree on the fact that my change breaks any API. The API doc is
    clear.

    Does the API doc say anything about the GIL, for example? Or Valgrind?

    I suggest you to continue the discussion on python-dev for a wider
    audience. I will test a few more projects before replying on the
    python-dev thread.

    I have no interest in going back and forth between the Python tracker
    and python-dev (especially since I hardly read python-dev these days).
    If you address my questions positively here I will be happy with the patch!

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    cryptography: good

    • Git commit 0681de7241dcbaec7b3dc85d3cf3944e4bec8309 (Mar 9 2016)

    "4 failed, 77064 passed, 3096 skipped in 405.09 seconds"

    1 error is related to the version number (probably an issue on how I run the tests), 3 errors are FileNotFoundError related to cryptography_vectors. At least, there is no Python fatal error related to memory allocators ;-)

    --

    Hum, just in case, I checked my venv:

    (ENV) haypo@smithers$ python -c 'import _testcapi; _testcapi.pymem_api_misuse()'
    ...
    Fatal Python error: bad ID: Allocated using API 'o', verified using API 'r'

    (ENV) haypo@smithers$ python -c 'import _testcapi; _testcapi.pymem_buffer_overflow()'
    ...
    Fatal Python error: bad trailing pad byte

    It works ;-)

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 9, 2016

    2016-03-09 18:28 GMT+01:00 Antoine Pitrou <report@bugs.python.org>:

    Does the API doc say anything about the GIL, for example? Or Valgrind?

    For the GIL, yes, Python 3 doc is explicit:
    https://docs.python.org/dev/c-api/memory.html#memory-interface

    Red and bold warning: "The GIL must be held when using these functions."

    Hum, sadly it looks like the warning miss in Python 2 doc.

    The GIL was the motivation to introduce the PyMem_RawMalloc() function
    in Python 3.4.

    For Valgrind: using the issue bpo-26516, you will be able to use
    PYTHONMALLOC=malloc to use easily Valgrind even on a Python compiled
    in release mode (which is a new feature, before you had to manually
    recompile Python in debug mode with --with-valgrind)).

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 10, 2016

    Does the API doc say anything about the GIL, for example?

    I modified Python to add assert(PyGILState_Check()); in PyMem_Malloc() and other functions.

    Sadly, I found a bug in Numpy: Numpy releases the GIL for performance but call PyMem_Malloc() with the GIL released. I proposed a fix:
    numpy/numpy#7404

    I guess that the fix is obvious and will be quickly merged, but it means that other libraries may have the issue.

    Using the issue bpo-26516 (PYTHONMALLOC=debug), we can check PyGILState_Check() at runtime, but there is currently an issue related to sub-interpreters. The assertion fails in support.run_in_subinterp(), function used by test_threading and test_capi for example.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 14, 2016

    pymalloc.patch: Updated patch.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 14, 2016

    Using the issue bpo-26516 (PYTHONMALLOC=debug), we can check PyGILState_Check() at runtime, but there is currently an issue related to sub-interpreters. The assertion fails in support.run_in_subinterp(), function used by test_threading and test_capi for example.

    I created bpo-26558 to implement GIL checks in PyMem_Malloc() and PyObject_Malloc().

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Mar 14, 2016

    I created the issue bpo-26563 "PyMem_Malloc(): check that the GIL is hold in debug hooks".

    @python-dev
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    python-dev mannequin commented Apr 22, 2016

    New changeset 68b2a43d8653 by Victor Stinner in branch 'default':
    PyMem_Malloc() now uses the fast pymalloc allocator
    https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/68b2a43d8653

    @python-dev
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    python-dev mannequin commented Apr 22, 2016

    New changeset 104ed24ebbd0 by Victor Stinner in branch 'default':
    Issue bpo-26249: Try test_capi on Windows
    https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/104ed24ebbd0

    @python-dev
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    python-dev mannequin commented Apr 24, 2016

    New changeset 7acad5d8f80e by Victor Stinner in branch 'default':
    Issue bpo-26249: Mention PyMem_Malloc() change in What's New in Python 3.6 in the
    https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/7acad5d8f80e

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Apr 24, 2016

    I documented the change, buildbots are happy, I close the issue.

    @serhiy-storchaka
    Copy link
    Member

    serhiy-storchaka commented Apr 25, 2016

    68b2a43d8653 introduced memory leak.

    $ ./python -m test.regrtest -uall -R : test_format
    Run tests sequentially
    0:00:00 [1/1] test_format
    beginning 9 repetitions
    123456789
    .........
    test_format leaked [6, 7, 7, 7] memory blocks, sum=27
    1 test failed:
        test_format
    Total duration: 0:00:01

    @python-dev
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    python-dev mannequin commented Apr 26, 2016

    New changeset 090502a0c69c by Victor Stinner in branch 'default':
    Issue bpo-25349, bpo-26249: Fix memleak in formatfloat()
    https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/090502a0c69c

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Apr 26, 2016

    68b2a43d8653 introduced memory leak.

    I was very surprised to see a regression in test_format since I didn't change any change related to bytes, bytearray or str formatting in this issue.

    In fact, it's much better than that! With PyMem_Malloc() using pymalloc, we benefit for free of the cheap "_Py_AllocatedBlocks" memory leak detector. I introduced the memory leak in the issue bpo-25349 when I optimimzed bytes%args and bytearray%args using the new _PyBytesWriter API.

    This memory leak gave me an idea, I opened the issue bpo-26850: "PyMem_RawMalloc(): update also sys.getallocatedblocks() in debug mode".

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member Author

    vstinner commented Apr 26, 2016

    There are no more know bugs related to this change, I close the issue. Thanks for the test_format report Serhiy, I missed it.

    @ezio-melotti ezio-melotti transferred this issue from another repository Apr 10, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Labels
    performance Performance or resource usage
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    3 participants