Skip to content
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-126892: Reset warmup counters when JIT compiling code #126893

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 20, 2024

Conversation

brandtbucher
Copy link
Member

@brandtbucher brandtbucher commented Nov 16, 2024

19% fewer traces created, no change in uops executed. No performance impact.

@brandtbucher brandtbucher added performance Performance or resource usage interpreter-core (Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs) topic-JIT labels Nov 16, 2024
@brandtbucher brandtbucher self-assigned this Nov 16, 2024
Copy link
Member

@markshannon markshannon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The warmup numbers are going to be wrong once #126816 is merged.

Do you want to get that merged first, then update this. Or the other way around?

@brandtbucher
Copy link
Member Author

I'll do that then this.

@brandtbucher
Copy link
Member Author

Fixed the tests (I also needed to change the logic a bit since the bytecode re-specializes before we JIT a new trace).

@brandtbucher brandtbucher merged commit 48c50ff into python:main Nov 20, 2024
59 checks passed
__run_using_command=[_strace_binary] + strace_flags)
__run_using_command=[_strace_binary] + strace_flags,
# Don't want to trace our JIT's own mmap and mprotect calls:
PYTHON_JIT="0",
Copy link
Contributor

@cmaloney cmaloney Nov 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Guessing this showed up in the test_fileio test test_syscalls_read?

I have been keeping an eye on / working through a couple other issues where mmap(NULL) and mprotect show up, trying to figure out if just excluding those two from that test would be good/effective (memory allocation happening in reading files is fine / not what the test is focused on).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I was wondering if this was susceptible to catching badly-timed arena allocations and such too. Might make sense to have an option to ignore the mmap/munmap/mprotect family of functions instead of this ad-hoc fix.

I'm just not familiar with how this is being used, and didn't want to change the meaning/behavior of the tests too dramatically.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
interpreter-core (Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs) performance Performance or resource usage topic-JIT
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants