Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35.2k
gh-128213: fast path for bytes creation from list and tuple#128214
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
base:main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
6f699b518c8e4a406fbdb4912a0556f802e4e1e3e6bf96d06File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Jump to
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
| Speed up :class:`bytes` creation from :class:`list` and :class:`tuple` of integers. Benchmarks show that from a list with 1000000 random numbers the time to create a bytes object is reduced by around 31%, or 30% with 10000 numbers, or 27% with 100 numbers. | ||
Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. IIRC, NEWS should not contain an empty line. | ||
| Patch by Ben Hsing | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ | ||||||||||
| #include "pycore_bytesobject.h" // _PyBytes_Find(), _PyBytes_Repeat() | ||||||||||
| #include "pycore_call.h" // _PyObject_CallNoArgs() | ||||||||||
| #include "pycore_ceval.h" // _PyEval_GetBuiltin() | ||||||||||
| #include "pycore_critical_section.h" // Py_BEGIN_CRITICAL_SECTION_SEQUENCE_FAST() | ||||||||||
| #include "pycore_format.h" // F_LJUST | ||||||||||
| #include "pycore_global_objects.h"// _Py_GET_GLOBAL_OBJECT() | ||||||||||
| #include "pycore_initconfig.h" // _PyStatus_OK() | ||||||||||
| @@ -2810,82 +2811,46 @@ _PyBytes_FromBuffer(PyObject *x) | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| static PyObject* | ||||||||||
| _PyBytes_FromList(PyObject *x) | ||||||||||
| _PyBytes_FromSequence(PyObject *x) | ||||||||||
| { | ||||||||||
| Py_ssize_t i, size = PyList_GET_SIZE(x); | ||||||||||
| Py_ssize_t value; | ||||||||||
| char *str; | ||||||||||
| PyObject *item; | ||||||||||
| _PyBytesWriter writer; | ||||||||||
| _PyBytesWriter_Init(&writer); | ||||||||||
| str = _PyBytesWriter_Alloc(&writer, size); | ||||||||||
| if (str == NULL) | ||||||||||
| Py_ssize_t size = PySequence_Fast_GET_SIZE(x); | ||||||||||
| PyObject *bytes = _PyBytes_FromSize(size, 0); | ||||||||||
| if (bytes == NULL) { | ||||||||||
| return NULL; | ||||||||||
| writer.overallocate = 1; | ||||||||||
| size = writer.allocated; | ||||||||||
| for (i = 0; i < PyList_GET_SIZE(x); i++) { | ||||||||||
| item = PyList_GET_ITEM(x, i); | ||||||||||
| Py_INCREF(item); | ||||||||||
| value = PyNumber_AsSsize_t(item, NULL); | ||||||||||
| Py_DECREF(item); | ||||||||||
| if (value == -1 && PyErr_Occurred()) | ||||||||||
| goto error; | ||||||||||
| if (value < 0 || value >= 256) { | ||||||||||
| PyErr_SetString(PyExc_ValueError, | ||||||||||
| "bytes must be in range(0, 256)"); | ||||||||||
| goto error; | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| if (i >= size) { | ||||||||||
| str = _PyBytesWriter_Resize(&writer, str, size+1); | ||||||||||
| if (str == NULL) | ||||||||||
| return NULL; | ||||||||||
| size = writer.allocated; | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| *str++ = (char) value; | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| return _PyBytesWriter_Finish(&writer, str); | ||||||||||
| error: | ||||||||||
| _PyBytesWriter_Dealloc(&writer); | ||||||||||
| return NULL; | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| static PyObject* | ||||||||||
| _PyBytes_FromTuple(PyObject *x) | ||||||||||
| { | ||||||||||
| PyObject *bytes; | ||||||||||
| Py_ssize_t i, size = PyTuple_GET_SIZE(x); | ||||||||||
| Py_ssize_t value; | ||||||||||
| char *str; | ||||||||||
| PyObject *item; | ||||||||||
| bytes = PyBytes_FromStringAndSize(NULL, size); | ||||||||||
| if (bytes == NULL) | ||||||||||
| return NULL; | ||||||||||
| str = ((PyBytesObject *)bytes)->ob_sval; | ||||||||||
| for (i = 0; i < size; i++) { | ||||||||||
| item = PyTuple_GET_ITEM(x, i); | ||||||||||
| value = PyNumber_AsSsize_t(item, NULL); | ||||||||||
| if (value == -1 && PyErr_Occurred()) | ||||||||||
| char *str = PyBytes_AS_STRING(bytes); | ||||||||||
| PyObject *const *items = PySequence_Fast_ITEMS(x); | ||||||||||
Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If we're going for performance, then we can do even better. ContributorAuthor There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. But all we know is that it is either a list or a tuple, but we still don't know which of the two it is, so a Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Right, but Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Alternatively, you can just duplicate the functions as we did previously. This is not really an issue IMO, and we couold use the fact that tuples are immutables for instance to avoid INCREF/DECREF values. | ||||||||||
| Py_BEGIN_CRITICAL_SECTION_SEQUENCE_FAST(x); | ||||||||||
Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. You need to acquire the critical section before calling
Comment on lines
+2822
to
+2823
Contributor There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
| ||||||||||
| for (Py_ssize_t i = 0; i < size; i++) { | ||||||||||
| if (!PyLong_Check(items[i])) { | ||||||||||
Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. (The previous code wasn't doing an exact check so we shouldn't change it) Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Well, it wouldn't be a breaking change, just a performance loss for the (very niche!) set of cases that use special ints. I'm also slightly worried that non-exact ints might have some nasty side effects that we aren't anticipating here (e.g. can they mess with the
| ||||||||||
| Py_DECREF(bytes); | ||||||||||
| /* Py_None as a fallback sentinel to the slow path */ | ||||||||||
| bytes = Py_None; | ||||||||||
| goto done; | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| Py_ssize_t value = PyNumber_AsSsize_t(items[i], NULL); | ||||||||||
| if (value == -1 && PyErr_Occurred()) { | ||||||||||
| goto error; | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| if (value < 0 || value >= 256) { | ||||||||||
| PyErr_SetString(PyExc_ValueError, | ||||||||||
| "bytes must be in range(0, 256)"); | ||||||||||
| goto error; | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| *str++ = (char) value; | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| return bytes; | ||||||||||
| goto done; | ||||||||||
| error: | ||||||||||
| Py_DECREF(bytes); | ||||||||||
| return NULL; | ||||||||||
| bytes = NULL; | ||||||||||
| done: | ||||||||||
| /* some C parsers require a label not to be at the end of a compound | ||||||||||
| statement, which the ending macro of a critical section introduces, so | ||||||||||
| we need an empty statement here to satisfy that syntax rule */ | ||||||||||
| ; | ||||||||||
| /* both success and failure need to end the critical section */ | ||||||||||
Comment on lines
+2846
to
+2851
Contributor There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Instead of these goto tricks, consider instead to pull out the critical section code into a helper function; it should result in cleaner and more readable code. Contributor There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. To avoid gotos in I defined a helper Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah yes, refactoring into a helper would definitely be cleaner and we wouldn't the comment. Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Btw, I think we could have those macro helpers because they would help us in those situations. Contributor There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure about introducing such an API. IMO, it is better to keep the critical section APIs dead simple. If you need to avoid gotos, refactor. Member There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah, I agree. With critical sections the safest way to go is to create a | ||||||||||
| Py_END_CRITICAL_SECTION_SEQUENCE_FAST(); | ||||||||||
blhsing marked this conversation as resolved.
Uh oh!There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. | ||||||||||
| return bytes; | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| static PyObject * | ||||||||||
| @@ -2968,11 +2933,13 @@ PyBytes_FromObject(PyObject *x) | ||||||||||
| if (PyObject_CheckBuffer(x)) | ||||||||||
| return _PyBytes_FromBuffer(x); | ||||||||||
| if (PyList_CheckExact(x)) | ||||||||||
| return _PyBytes_FromList(x); | ||||||||||
| if (PyTuple_CheckExact(x)) | ||||||||||
| return _PyBytes_FromTuple(x); | ||||||||||
| if (PyList_CheckExact(x) || PyTuple_CheckExact(x)) { | ||||||||||
| PyObject *bytes = _PyBytes_FromSequence(x); | ||||||||||
| /* Py_None as a fallback sentinel to the slow path */ | ||||||||||
| if (bytes != Py_None) { | ||||||||||
blhsing marked this conversation as resolved.
Uh oh!There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. | ||||||||||
| return bytes; | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||
| if (!PyUnicode_Check(x)) { | ||||||||||
| it = PyObject_GetIter(x); | ||||||||||
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.
Can we have the pyperf benchmarks on the PR as well? (namely, the nice table with two columns and the diffs as well as the benchmark script? thanks)