gh-119109: improve functools.partial vectorcall with keywords

[dg-pb]

(Potentially closes#128050)

This IMO is the best approach to resolve fallback "issue". It:
a) Eliminates the need for the fallback or any need to switch between implementation after initial construction
b) Delivers performance benefits for vectorcall when partial has keywords

Benchmark:

# BENCH 2 ARGS# ------------ S="from functools import partialf=lambda a, b: a - bp1 = partial(f)p2 = partial(f, b=2)l = lambda a: f(a, b=2)"$PYCMD -c "${S}; print(p1(1, 2))"# -1 | -1 |$PYCMD -c "${S}; print(p2(1))"# -1 | -1 |# BEFORE | AFTER | %CHN | LAMBDA LB$PYCMD -m timeit -s $S'p1(1, 2)'# 87 ns | 85 ns | |$PYCMD -m timeit -s $S'p1(1, b=2)'# 100 ns | 96 ns | |$PYCMD -m timeit -s $S'p2(1)'# 240 ns | 135 ns | -45% | 94 ns$PYCMD -m timeit -s $S'p2(a=1)'# 350 ns | 160 ns | -55% | 110 ns# BENCH 10 ARGS# ------------- S="from functools import partialfunc = lambda a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j: (a + b + c + d + e + f + g + h + i + j)p = partial(func, f=5, g=6, h=7, i=8, j=9)l = lambda a, b, c, d, e, f=5, g=6, h=7, i=8, j=9: func(a, b, c, d, e, f=f, g=g, h=h, i=i, j=j)" C0="${S}; print(p(0, 1, 2, 3, 4))" C1='p(0, 1, 2, 3, 4)' C2='p(a=0, b=1, c=2, d=3, e=4)'# disjoint kw and pto_kw C3='p(a=0, b=1, c=2, d=3, e=4, f=5, g=6)'# kw partially overlaps pto_kw C4='p(a=0, b=1, c=2, d=3, e=4, f=5, g=6, h=7, i=8, j=9)'# kw overrides pto_kw$PYCMD -c $C0# 45 | 45 |# BEFORE | AFTER | %CHN | LAMBDA LB$PYCMD -m timeit -s $S$C1# 440 ns | 320 ns | -28% | 240 ns$PYCMD -m timeit -s $S$C2# 890 ns | 440 ns | -50% | 260 ns$PYCMD -m timeit -s $S$C3# 1000 ns | 600 ns | -40% | 270 ns$PYCMD -m timeit -s $S$C4# 1250 ns | 700 ns | -44% | 300 ns# FUNCTION CALL - 210 ms$PYCMD -m timeit -s $S'f(a=0, b=1, c=2, d=3, e=4, f=5, g=6, h=7, i=8, j=9)'

No penalty for calls without pto_kwds.
Non negligible speed improvement for calls with pto_kwds: 27 - 55%

• Issue: functools.partial does not re-set vector call. #119109

[rhettinger]

Perhaps @vstinner has the time and interest in looking at this.

[dg-pb]

I think it is a good compromise between simplicity and performance now.

One micro-optimization that I couldn't figure out how to do simply is pre-storing kwnames tuple so it doesn't need to be created on every call. It would drop another ~50 ns.

Not sure how much sense it makes yet, but I posted faster-cpython/ideas#699 in relation to this.

Ready for review now.

[dg-pb]

Was wandering if it might be worth factoring out macros for private use.

[serhiy-storchaka]

LGTM. 👍

[kumaraditya303]

No refleaks:

❯ ./python.exe -m test -R 3:3 test_functoolsUsing random seed: 4582604610:00:00 load avg: 1.72 Run 1 test sequentially in a single process0:00:00 load avg: 1.72 [1/1] test_functoolsbeginning 6 repetitions. Showing number of leaks (. for 0 or less, X for 10 or more)123:456XX. ...0:00:02 load avg: 1.66 [1/1] test_functools passed== Tests result: SUCCESS ==1 test OK.Total duration: 2.1 secTotal tests: run=321 skipped=1Total test files: run=1/1Result: SUCCESS

[dg-pb]

No refleaks:

I get the same on main.

And also the same if I remove all tests except test_functools:TestImportTime.

Maybe not related to this PR?

EDIT: I assumed this shows that there are refleaks? Or am I failing to interpret something? Never used -R - a bit more explicit comment would be much appreciated.

[kumaraditya303]

I assumed this shows that there are refleaks? Or am I failing to interpret something? Never used -R - a bit more explicit comment would be much appreciated.

The output I posted means that there are no leaks, -R is used to check for reference leaks and 3:3 indicates the numbers of runs to checks for leaks.

See https://devguide.python.org/testing/run-write-tests/

[kumaraditya303]

I think the resizing logic is unnecessary and adds extra complexity, would you simplify it to what Serhiy suggested or alternatively remove it altogether @dg-pb?

[dg-pb]

simplify it to what Serhiy suggested

I don't think it was simplification. He did propose an alternative and I incorporated it into the logic.

Why I kept the old one noveralloc > 6 is because without it:

# only: (noveralloc > init_stack_size / 2)p=partial(a=1) f(a=2) # initial stack size: 3# used stack size: 1

Thus, would be kicking in too often.
And I took 10 instead of 2, as it wouldn't capture cases such as:
initial stack size = 1000
used stack size = 499

10% is I think a good number, given we are talking about the pool of 0.01% of cases.

I feel that what is currently there provides necessary protection at minimal cost and is unlikely to cause any issues.

But if you have better rationale in mind, I am open to further amendments.

alternatively remove it altogether

Things like recursion of partial objects or partial calls with very high number of keyword arguments, although not common and not the best idea for production code, but given description of partial object are perfectly valid use cases that can be useful in prototyping/testing something quickly.

"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."
0.1% doesn't seem much, out of 10M it is 10K. Out of those 10K who decide to use more than 7 keywords, say 0.1% will have a noticeable memory consumption by partial object, that is 10 people.

Thus, given enough time it is very likely that more than 1 instance of issues with this will happen.

Given it is pretty much for free, and the block can be easily removed if there is a need for it in the future, I am in favour of being "better safe than sorry" here.

[kumaraditya303]

But if you have better rationale in mind, I am open to further amendments.

I don't have better resizing strategy in mind atm so I'll not block this PR on it now, I'll merge this now thanks.

[hawkinsp]

Is a 3.14 backport possible for this PR, given it fixes a free threading race also?

[kumaraditya303]

Is a 3.14 backport possible for this PR, given it fixes a free threading race also?

This is performance improvement so it cannot be backported, I haven't seen any real crashes on this so adding supression should be fine for 3.14.