Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
gh-112087: Update list_get_item_ref to optimistically avoid locking #116353
gh-112087: Update list_get_item_ref to optimistically avoid locking #116353
Changes from 2 commits
eda29bc
9071dd4
f0999f8
d5b7723
f03efb2
d5d39ec
2dc7762
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 okay for now, but we need to store the capacity at the start of the
ob_item
allocation in the free-threaded build.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 may need to create a issue for tracking this.
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 necessary for thread-safety so I think it's covered by #112087
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.
By the way, we already store the
op->allocated
at theob_item
allocation.So adding assertion will be enough?
assert(cap != -1 && cap >= 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.
cpython/Objects/listobject.c
Lines 207 to 208 in 72714c0
cpython/Objects/listobject.c
Line 119 in 72714c0
cpython/Objects/listobject.c
Line 97 in 72714c0
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 currently store it in the
PyListObject
. We also need to store it in the same memory allocation as theob_item
array, like a pre-header.Here are some pointers to the relevant code in nogil-3.12:
The problem with the current code is that the list may be resized concurrently with the access. The bounds check may be stale. Putting the value of "allocated" as an immutable field avoids this 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.
Ah, I got it. I understood what you want to say. Let's handle it at a separate PR.