2016-06-17 22:53:20 -04:00
|
|
|
|
PEP: 523
|
|
|
|
|
Title: Adding a frame evaluation API to CPython
|
|
|
|
|
Version: $Revision$
|
|
|
|
|
Last-Modified: $Date$
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Brett Cannon <brett@python.org>,
|
|
|
|
|
Dino Viehland <dinov@microsoft.com>
|
2016-08-30 17:09:41 -04:00
|
|
|
|
Status: Accepted
|
2016-06-17 22:53:20 -04:00
|
|
|
|
Type: Standards Track
|
|
|
|
|
Content-Type: text/x-rst
|
|
|
|
|
Created: 16-May-2016
|
|
|
|
|
Post-History: 16-May-2016
|
2016-08-30 17:09:41 -04:00
|
|
|
|
Resolution: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-August/145937.html
|
2016-06-17 22:53:20 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This PEP proposes to expand CPython's C API [#c-api]_ to allow for
|
|
|
|
|
the specification of a per-interpreter function pointer to handle the
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation of frames [#pyeval_evalframeex]_. This proposal also
|
|
|
|
|
suggests adding a new field to code objects [#pycodeobject]_ to store
|
|
|
|
|
arbitrary data for use by the frame evaluation function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rationale
|
|
|
|
|
=========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One place where flexibility has been lacking in Python is in the direct
|
|
|
|
|
execution of Python code. While CPython's C API [#c-api]_ allows for
|
|
|
|
|
constructing the data going into a frame object and then evaluating it
|
|
|
|
|
via ``PyEval_EvalFrameEx()`` [#pyeval_evalframeex]_, control over the
|
|
|
|
|
execution of Python code comes down to individual objects instead of a
|
|
|
|
|
holistic control of execution at the frame level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While wanting to have influence over frame evaluation may seem a bit
|
|
|
|
|
too low-level, it does open the possibility for things such as a
|
|
|
|
|
method-level JIT to be introduced into CPython without CPython itself
|
|
|
|
|
having to provide one. By allowing external C code to control frame
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation, a JIT can participate in the execution of Python code at
|
|
|
|
|
the key point where evaluation occurs. This then allows for a JIT to
|
|
|
|
|
conditionally recompile Python bytecode to machine code as desired
|
|
|
|
|
while still allowing for executing regular CPython bytecode when
|
|
|
|
|
running the JIT is not desired. This can be accomplished by allowing
|
|
|
|
|
interpreters to specify what function to call to evaluate a frame. And
|
|
|
|
|
by placing the API at the frame evaluation level it allows for a
|
|
|
|
|
complete view of the execution environment of the code for the JIT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This ability to specify a frame evaluation function also allows for
|
|
|
|
|
other use-cases beyond just opening CPython up to a JIT. For instance,
|
|
|
|
|
it would not be difficult to implement a tracing or profiling function
|
|
|
|
|
at the call level with this API. While CPython does provide the
|
|
|
|
|
ability to set a tracing or profiling function at the Python level,
|
|
|
|
|
this would be able to match the data collection of the profiler and
|
|
|
|
|
quite possibly be faster for tracing by simply skipping per-line
|
|
|
|
|
tracing support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It also opens up the possibility of debugging where the frame
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation function only performs special debugging work when it
|
|
|
|
|
detects it is about to execute a specific code object. In that
|
|
|
|
|
instance the bytecode could be theoretically rewritten in-place to
|
|
|
|
|
inject a breakpoint function call at the proper point for help in
|
|
|
|
|
debugging while not having to do a heavy-handed approach as
|
|
|
|
|
required by ``sys.settrace()``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To help facilitate these use-cases, we are also proposing the adding
|
|
|
|
|
of a "scratch space" on code objects via a new field. This will allow
|
|
|
|
|
per-code object data to be stored with the code object itself for easy
|
|
|
|
|
retrieval by the frame evaluation function as necessary. The field
|
|
|
|
|
itself will simply be a ``PyObject *`` type so that any data stored in
|
|
|
|
|
the field will participate in normal object memory management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposal
|
|
|
|
|
========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All proposed C API changes below will not be part of the stable ABI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expanding ``PyCodeObject``
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One field is to be added to the ``PyCodeObject`` struct
|
|
|
|
|
[#pycodeobject]_::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
typedef struct {
|
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
PyObject *co_extra; /* "Scratch space" for the code object. */
|
|
|
|
|
} PyCodeObject;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ``co_extra`` will be ``NULL`` by default and will not be used by
|
|
|
|
|
CPython itself. Third-party code is free to use the field as desired.
|
|
|
|
|
Values stored in the field are expected to not be required in order
|
|
|
|
|
for the code object to function, allowing the loss of the data of the
|
|
|
|
|
field to be acceptable (this keeps the code object as immutable from
|
|
|
|
|
a functionality point-of-view; this is slightly contentious and so is
|
|
|
|
|
listed as an open issue in `Is co_extra needed?`_). The field will be
|
|
|
|
|
freed like all other fields on ``PyCodeObject`` during deallocation
|
|
|
|
|
using ``Py_XDECREF()``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not recommended that multiple users attempt to use the
|
|
|
|
|
``co_extra`` simultaneously. While a dictionary could theoretically be
|
|
|
|
|
set to the field and various users could use a key specific to the
|
|
|
|
|
project, there is still the issue of key collisions as well as
|
|
|
|
|
performance degradation from using a dictionary lookup on every frame
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation. Users are expected to do a type check to make sure that
|
|
|
|
|
the field has not been previously set by someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expanding ``PyInterpreterState``
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-07-11 11:14:08 -04:00
|
|
|
|
The entrypoint for the frame evaluation function is per-interpreter::
|
2016-06-17 22:53:20 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Same type signature as PyEval_EvalFrameEx().
|
|
|
|
|
typedef PyObject* (__stdcall *PyFrameEvalFunction)(PyFrameObject*, int);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
typedef struct {
|
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
PyFrameEvalFunction eval_frame;
|
|
|
|
|
} PyInterpreterState;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By default, the ``eval_frame`` field will be initialized to a function
|
|
|
|
|
pointer that represents what ``PyEval_EvalFrameEx()`` currently is
|
|
|
|
|
(called ``PyEval_EvalFrameDefault()``, discussed later in this PEP).
|
|
|
|
|
Third-party code may then set their own frame evaluation function
|
|
|
|
|
instead to control the execution of Python code. A pointer comparison
|
|
|
|
|
can be used to detect if the field is set to
|
|
|
|
|
``PyEval_EvalFrameDefault()`` and thus has not been mutated yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes to ``Python/ceval.c``
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``PyEval_EvalFrameEx()`` [#pyeval_evalframeex]_ as it currently stands
|
|
|
|
|
will be renamed to ``PyEval_EvalFrameDefault()``. The new
|
|
|
|
|
``PyEval_EvalFrameEx()`` will then become::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PyObject *
|
|
|
|
|
PyEval_EvalFrameEx(PyFrameObject *frame, int throwflag)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
PyThreadState *tstate = PyThreadState_GET();
|
|
|
|
|
return tstate->interp->eval_frame(frame, throwflag);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This allows third-party code to place themselves directly in the path
|
|
|
|
|
of Python code execution while being backwards-compatible with code
|
|
|
|
|
already using the pre-existing C API.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Updating ``python-gdb.py``
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The generated ``python-gdb.py`` file used for Python support in GDB
|
|
|
|
|
makes some hard-coded assumptions about ``PyEval_EvalFrameEx()``, e.g.
|
|
|
|
|
the names of local variables. It will need to be updated to work with
|
|
|
|
|
the proposed changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance impact
|
|
|
|
|
==================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As this PEP is proposing an API to add pluggability, performance
|
|
|
|
|
impact is considered only in the case where no third-party code has
|
|
|
|
|
made any changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several runs of pybench [#pybench]_ consistently showed no performance
|
|
|
|
|
cost from the API change alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A run of the Python benchmark suite [#py-benchmarks]_ showed no
|
|
|
|
|
measurable cost in performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In terms of memory impact, since there are typically not many CPython
|
|
|
|
|
interpreters executing in a single process that means the impact of
|
|
|
|
|
``co_extra`` being added to ``PyCodeObject`` is the only worry.
|
|
|
|
|
According to [#code-object-count]_, a run of the Python test suite
|
|
|
|
|
results in about 72,395 code objects being created. On a 64-bit
|
|
|
|
|
CPU that would result in 579,160 bytes of extra memory being used if
|
|
|
|
|
all code objects were alive at once and had nothing set in their
|
|
|
|
|
``co_extra`` fields.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example Usage
|
|
|
|
|
=============
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A JIT for CPython
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pyjion
|
|
|
|
|
''''''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pyjion project [#pyjion]_ has used this proposed API to implement
|
|
|
|
|
a JIT for CPython using the CoreCLR's JIT [#coreclr]_. Each code
|
|
|
|
|
object has its ``co_extra`` field set to a ``PyjionJittedCode`` object
|
|
|
|
|
which stores four pieces of information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Execution count
|
|
|
|
|
2. A boolean representing whether a previous attempt to JIT failed
|
|
|
|
|
3. A function pointer to a trampoline (which can be type tracing or not)
|
|
|
|
|
4. A void pointer to any JIT-compiled machine code
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The frame evaluation function has (roughly) the following algorithm::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
def eval_frame(frame, throw_flag):
|
|
|
|
|
pyjion_code = frame.code.co_extra
|
|
|
|
|
if not pyjion_code:
|
|
|
|
|
frame.code.co_extra = PyjionJittedCode()
|
|
|
|
|
elif not pyjion_code.jit_failed:
|
|
|
|
|
if not pyjion_code.jit_code:
|
|
|
|
|
return pyjion_code.eval(pyjion_code.jit_code, frame)
|
|
|
|
|
elif pyjion_code.exec_count > 20_000:
|
|
|
|
|
if jit_compile(frame):
|
|
|
|
|
return pyjion_code.eval(pyjion_code.jit_code, frame)
|
|
|
|
|
else:
|
|
|
|
|
pyjion_code.jit_failed = True
|
|
|
|
|
pyjion_code.exec_count += 1
|
|
|
|
|
return PyEval_EvalFrameDefault(frame, throw_flag)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The key point, though, is that all of this work and logic is separate
|
|
|
|
|
from CPython and yet with the proposed API changes it is able to
|
|
|
|
|
provide a JIT that is compliant with Python semantics (as of this
|
|
|
|
|
writing, performance is almost equivalent to CPython without the new
|
|
|
|
|
API). This means there's nothing technically preventing others from
|
|
|
|
|
implementing their own JITs for CPython by utilizing the proposed API.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other JITs
|
|
|
|
|
''''''''''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should be mentioned that the Pyston team was consulted on an
|
|
|
|
|
earlier version of this PEP that was more JIT-specific and they were
|
|
|
|
|
not interested in utilizing the changes proposed because they want
|
|
|
|
|
control over memory layout they had no interest in directly supporting
|
|
|
|
|
CPython itself. An informal discusion with a developer on the PyPy
|
|
|
|
|
team led to a similar comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numba [#numba]_, on the other hand, suggested that they would be
|
|
|
|
|
interested in the proposed change in a post-1.0 future for
|
|
|
|
|
themselves [#numba-interest]_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The experimental Coconut JIT [#coconut]_ could have benefitted from
|
|
|
|
|
this PEP. In private conversations with Coconut's creator we were told
|
|
|
|
|
that our API was probably superior to the one they developed for
|
|
|
|
|
Coconut to add JIT support to CPython.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debugging
|
|
|
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In conversations with the Python Tools for Visual Studio team (PTVS)
|
|
|
|
|
[#ptvs]_, they thought they would find these API changes useful for
|
|
|
|
|
implementing more performant debugging. As mentioned in the Rationale_
|
|
|
|
|
section, this API would allow for switching on debugging functionality
|
|
|
|
|
only in frames where it is needed. This could allow for either
|
|
|
|
|
skipping information that ``sys.settrace()`` normally provides and
|
|
|
|
|
even go as far as to dynamically rewrite bytecode prior to execution
|
|
|
|
|
to inject e.g. breakpoints in the bytecode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It also turns out that Google has provided a very similar API
|
|
|
|
|
internally for years. It has been used for performant debugging
|
|
|
|
|
purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implementation
|
|
|
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A set of patches implementing the proposed API is available through
|
|
|
|
|
the Pyjion project [#pyjion]_. In its current form it has more
|
|
|
|
|
changes to CPython than just this proposed API, but that is for ease
|
|
|
|
|
of development instead of strict requirements to accomplish its goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open Issues
|
|
|
|
|
===========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allow ``eval_frame`` to be ``NULL``
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently the frame evaluation function is expected to always be set.
|
|
|
|
|
It could very easily simply default to ``NULL`` instead which would
|
|
|
|
|
signal to use ``PyEval_EvalFrameDefault()``. The current proposal of
|
2016-07-11 11:14:08 -04:00
|
|
|
|
not special-casing the field seemed the most straightforward, but it
|
2016-06-17 22:53:20 -04:00
|
|
|
|
does require that the field not accidentally be cleared, else a crash
|
|
|
|
|
may occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is co_extra needed?
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While discussing this PEP at PyCon US 2016, some core developers
|
|
|
|
|
expressed their worry of the ``co_extra`` field making code objects
|
|
|
|
|
mutable. The thinking seemed to be that having a field that was
|
|
|
|
|
mutated after the creation of the code object made the object seem
|
|
|
|
|
mutable, even though no other aspect of code objects changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The view of this PEP is that the `co_extra` field doesn't change the
|
|
|
|
|
fact that code objects are immutable. The field is specified in this
|
|
|
|
|
PEP as to not contain information required to make the code object
|
|
|
|
|
usable, making it more of a caching field. It could be viewed as
|
|
|
|
|
similar to the UTF-8 cache that string objects have internally;
|
|
|
|
|
strings are still considered immutable even though they have a field
|
|
|
|
|
that is conditionally set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The field is also not strictly necessary. While the field greatly
|
|
|
|
|
simplifies attaching extra information to code objects, other options
|
|
|
|
|
such as keeping a mapping of code object memory addresses to what
|
|
|
|
|
would have been kept in ``co_extra`` or perhaps using a weak reference
|
|
|
|
|
of the data on the code object and then iterating through the weak
|
|
|
|
|
references until the attached data is found is possible. But obviously
|
|
|
|
|
all of these solutions are not as simple or performant as adding the
|
|
|
|
|
``co_extra`` field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rejected Ideas
|
|
|
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A JIT-specific C API
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally this PEP was going to propose a much larger API change
|
|
|
|
|
which was more JIT-specific. After soliciting feedback from the Numba
|
|
|
|
|
team [#numba]_, though, it became clear that the API was unnecessarily
|
|
|
|
|
large. The realization was made that all that was truly needed was the
|
|
|
|
|
opportunity to provide a trampoline function to handle execution of
|
|
|
|
|
Python code that had been JIT-compiled and a way to attach that
|
|
|
|
|
compiled machine code along with other critical data to the
|
|
|
|
|
corresponding Python code object. Once it was shown that there was no
|
|
|
|
|
loss in functionality or in performance while minimizing the API
|
|
|
|
|
changes required, the proposal was changed to its current form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
References
|
|
|
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#pyjion] Pyjion project
|
|
|
|
|
(https://github.com/microsoft/pyjion)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#c-api] CPython's C API
|
|
|
|
|
(https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/index.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#pycodeobject] ``PyCodeObject``
|
|
|
|
|
(https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/code.html#c.PyCodeObject)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#coreclr] .NET Core Runtime (CoreCLR)
|
|
|
|
|
(https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#pyeval_evalframeex] ``PyEval_EvalFrameEx()``
|
|
|
|
|
(https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/veryhigh.html?highlight=pyframeobject#c.PyEval_EvalFrameEx)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#numba] Numba
|
|
|
|
|
(http://numba.pydata.org/)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#numba-interest] numba-users mailing list:
|
|
|
|
|
"Would the C API for a JIT entrypoint being proposed by Pyjion help out Numba?"
|
|
|
|
|
(https://groups.google.com/a/continuum.io/forum/#!topic/numba-users/yRl_0t8-m1g)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#code-object-count] [Python-Dev] Opcode cache in ceval loop
|
|
|
|
|
(https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-February/143025.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#py-benchmarks] Python benchmark suite
|
|
|
|
|
(https://hg.python.org/benchmarks)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#pyston] Pyston
|
|
|
|
|
(http://pyston.org)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#pypy] PyPy
|
|
|
|
|
(http://pypy.org/)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#ptvs] Python Tools for Visual Studio
|
|
|
|
|
(http://microsoft.github.io/PTVS/)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#coconut] Coconut
|
|
|
|
|
(https://github.com/davidmalcolm/coconut)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-06-19 12:49:05 -04:00
|
|
|
|
.. [#pybench] pybench
|
|
|
|
|
(https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/default/Tools/pybench)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-06-17 22:53:20 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright
|
|
|
|
|
=========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document has been placed in the public domain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..
|
|
|
|
|
Local Variables:
|
|
|
|
|
mode: indented-text
|
|
|
|
|
indent-tabs-mode: nil
|
|
|
|
|
sentence-end-double-space: t
|
|
|
|
|
fill-column: 70
|
|
|
|
|
coding: utf-8
|
|
|
|
|
End:
|