forked from python/cpython
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
Reduce the overhead of tracing, profiling, and quickening checks for calls #8
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
Closed
lpereira
wants to merge
6
commits into
faster-cpython:main
from
lpereira:start-function-for-faster-cpython
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
908222e
Build "opcode_targets" with designated initializers
9e84c0f
Simplify calls to compiler_function()
323c03d
compile: Introduce START_FUNCTION opcode
9313c41
ceval: Move checks for tracing/profiling to START_FUNCTION implementa…
2eccb5f
specialize: Quicken START_FUNCTION to NOP
6e1698e
ceval: Skip tracing/profiling on quickened functions as well
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Honestly, I would just duplicate the code. You also redundantly have an extra variable
retval
, which is only used in theTRACE_FUNCTION_EXIT()
macro. Maybe something needs to be refactored again here.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.
I did some refactoring and the variable that's only used when tracing is enabled is now gone. (It's now inside the macro, which now takes a parameter.)
I dislike both copying code and doing what has been done in this PR, to be honest... while I do have a slight preference to the way I've done things as it's quite a bit of code that don't need to be copied around.
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.
Another possible option: split the opcode in two? So we have one opcode which does the tracing, and one which does the return.
The original code would be
EXIT_FUNCTION + RETURN_VALUE
, and the quickening step would replaceEXIT_FUNCTION
withNOP
(or, even better,RETURN_VALUE
).I'm pretty sure that could work correctly here, but I might be missing some edge case where an eval break could leave us in a weird state where we trace a return that never happens (or something).
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.
Hm, never mind. I don't know how much that would actually clean this up.