Skip to content

bpo-30156: Remove property_descr_get() optimization #9541

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 1, 2018
Merged

bpo-30156: Remove property_descr_get() optimization #9541

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 1, 2018

Conversation

vstinner
Copy link
Member

@vstinner vstinner commented Sep 24, 2018

property_descr_get() uses a "cached" tuple to optimize function
calls. But this tuple can be discovered in debug mode with
sys.getobjects(). Remove the optimization, it's not really worth it
and it causes 3 different crashes.

Microbenchmark:

./python -m perf timeit -v
-s "from collections import namedtuple; P = namedtuple('P', 'x y'); p = P(1, 2)"
--duplicate 1024 "p.x"

Result:

Mean +- std dev: [ref] 32.8 ns +- 0.8 ns -> [patch] 40.4 ns +- 1.3 ns: 1.23x slower (+23%)

https://bugs.python.org/issue30156

property_descr_get() uses a "cached" tuple to optimize function
calls. But this tuple can be discovered in debug mode with
sys.getobjects(). Remove the optimization, it's not really worth it
and it causes 3 different crashes last years.

Microbenchmark:

./python -m perf timeit -v \
    -s "from collections import namedtuple; P = namedtuple('P', 'x y'); p = P(1, 2)" \
    --duplicate 1024 "p.x"

Result:

Mean +- std dev: [ref] 32.8 ns +- 0.8 ns -> [patch] 40.4 ns +- 1.3 ns: 1.23x slower (+23%)
@vstinner
Copy link
Member Author

I rewrote my commit to add a NEWS entry and update the commit message.

@vstinner vstinner merged commit e972c13 into python:master Oct 1, 2018
@vstinner vstinner deleted the property_descr_get branch October 1, 2018 10:03
@vstinner
Copy link
Member Author

vstinner commented Oct 1, 2018

Thanks for the review @rhettinger ;-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants