Skip to content

GH-120024: Remove CHECK_EVAL_BREAKER macro. #122968

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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
markshannon merged 8 commits into from
Aug 14, 2024
Merged

GH-120024: Remove CHECK_EVAL_BREAKER macro. #122968

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7d3642c
Factor some instructions into micro-ops to isolate CHECK_EVAL_BREAKER…
markshannon Aug 13, 2024
5f2edfa
Extract eval breaker check from CALL_KW
markshannon Aug 13, 2024
74fa180
Extract eval breaker check from CALL_FUNCTION_EX
markshannon Aug 13, 2024
6515e7f
Eliminate CHECK_EVAL_BREAKER macro
markshannon Aug 13, 2024
4f93d7b
Remove (most) special case handling of CHECK_EVAL_BREAKER
markshannon Aug 13, 2024
ff9fbb1
Merge branch 'main' into eval-breaker-micro-ops
markshannon Aug 13, 2024
0b670ac
Remove test for CHECK_EVAL_BREAKER
markshannon Aug 13, 2024
44eb38f
Address review comments
markshannon Aug 14, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
40 changes: 20 additions & 20 deletions Include/internal/pycore_opcode_metadata.h
View file
Open in desktop

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.

4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions Include/internal/pycore_uop_metadata.h
View file
Open in desktop

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.

16 changes: 14 additions & 2 deletions Python/bytecodes.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -148,12 +148,24 @@ dummy_func(
};

op(_CHECK_PERIODIC, (--)) {
CHECK_EVAL_BREAKER();
_Py_CHECK_EMSCRIPTEN_SIGNALS_PERIODICALLY();
QSBR_QUIESCENT_STATE(tstate); \
if (_Py_atomic_load_uintptr_relaxed(&tstate->eval_breaker) & _PY_EVAL_EVENTS_MASK) {
if (_Py_HandlePending(tstate) != 0) {
GOTO_ERROR(error); \
}
}
}

op(_CHECK_PERIODIC_NOT_YIELD_FROM, (--)) {
Comment thread
markshannon marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
if ((oparg & RESUME_OPARG_LOCATION_MASK) < RESUME_AFTER_YIELD_FROM) {
CHECK_EVAL_BREAKER();
_Py_CHECK_EMSCRIPTEN_SIGNALS_PERIODICALLY();
QSBR_QUIESCENT_STATE(tstate); \
if (_Py_atomic_load_uintptr_relaxed(&tstate->eval_breaker) & _PY_EVAL_EVENTS_MASK) {
if (_Py_HandlePending(tstate) != 0) {
GOTO_ERROR(error); \
}
}
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@iritkatriel iritkatriel Aug 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can this be implemented as a macro that reuses _CHECK_PERIODIC? Like "if condition is false, exit, then do _CHECK_PERIODIC"?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@markshannon markshannon Aug 14, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removing the macro is the point of this PR. Macros are opaque to the code generator, so we need to special case them (which is OK for something very common like Py_DECREF). Avoiding the special case simplifies the code generator considerably.
It is the call to _Py_HandlePending that escapes, not the whole of _CHECK_PERIODIC and we want the code generator to know that.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@iritkatriel iritkatriel Aug 14, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I meant a macro instruction of the DSL.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@markshannon markshannon Aug 14, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, I see.
No it can't, as macros can only be composed in a linear sequence. We need branching here, not deoptimization.
EXIT_IF and DEOPT_IF only make sense in specialized instructions.

}
}

Expand Down
10 changes: 0 additions & 10 deletions Python/ceval_macros.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -133,16 +133,6 @@ do { \
// Use this instead of 'goto error' so Tier 2 can go to a different label
#define GOTO_ERROR(LABEL) goto LABEL

#define CHECK_EVAL_BREAKER() \
_Py_CHECK_EMSCRIPTEN_SIGNALS_PERIODICALLY(); \
QSBR_QUIESCENT_STATE(tstate); \
if (_Py_atomic_load_uintptr_relaxed(&tstate->eval_breaker) & _PY_EVAL_EVENTS_MASK) { \
if (_Py_HandlePending(tstate) != 0) { \
GOTO_ERROR(error); \
} \
}


/* Tuple access macros */

#ifndef Py_DEBUG
Expand Down
16 changes: 14 additions & 2 deletions Python/executor_cases.c.h
View file
Open in desktop

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.

Loading