GH-115506: Improve handling of constants in tier two

[brandtbucher]

This adds a refs tuple to executor objects, which contains constants created during optimization of tier two traces. This isn't deduplicated at all, since not all of our "constants" are actually "constant", and arbitrary hashes/comparisons can open up a whole can of worms. If we want to go that route, we can probably re-use _PyCode_ConstantKey for known safe, immutable types, and compare everything else by identity.

This also updates some parts of the optimizer to improve the handling of known constants (such as adding peepholing for _POP_TOP_LOAD_CONST_INLINE_BORROW, _REPLACE_WITH_TRUE, and _COPY/_LOAD_FAST with known constant values).

Performance and memory are in the noise... perhaps a bit faster if you squint hard enough. But it's working: the stats show lots of instructions like _REPLACE_WITH_TRUE, _POP_TOP_LOAD_CONST_INLINE_BORROW, _LOAD_FAST, _COPY, and _BINARY_OP_ADD_INT being replaced with simpler instructions like _LOAD_CONST_INLINE_BORROW, _POP_TOP, and _LOAD_CONST_INLINE.

My next step will be experimenting with no-refcount variants of _COPY, _LOAD_FAST, _STORE_FAST, and _POP_TOP with known immortal values.

• Issue: Eliminate constant inputs and output constants for simple operations #115506

[markshannon]

I think this belongs in the (yet to be created) partial evaluation pass.

Any optimization that does evaluation, or transforms representation belongs in that pass.

In that pass, the _BINARY_OP_MULTIPLY_FLOAT case would look something like:

op(_BINARY_OP_MULTIPLY_FLOAT, (left, right--res)){if (is_const(left) &&is_const(right)){assert(PyFloat_CheckExact(get_const(left))); assert(PyFloat_CheckExact(get_const(right))); PyObject*temp=PyFloat_FromDouble( PyFloat_AS_DOUBLE(sym_get_const(left)) *PyFloat_AS_DOUBLE(sym_get_const(right))); res=virtual_const(temp, ctx)} else{materialize(left, ctx); materialize(right, ctx); emit(_BINARY_OP_MULTIPLY_FLOAT, ctx); res=concrete_tos(ctx)} }

[Fidget-Spinner]

I think we could extract the useful part (the API to maintain a constant pool in the executor) though, and make the PR just that.

[brandtbucher]

Well, I think the rest of the PR is useful too... 🙂

I'm not sure I understand the desire to have an entirely new pass when the same work could be easily done as part of this one. It seems like a lot of extra code (and computation), for little gain. I also suspect that we would be repeating a ton of the same work in the second pass.

Is there a paper or something that explains why two passes are better than one? My intuition would be to reduce the number of passes, rather than increasing it (for example, by doing abstract interpretation during trace projection).

[Fidget-Spinner]

Is there a paper or something that explains why two passes are better than one? My intuition would be to reduce the number of passes, rather than increasing it (for example, by doing abstract interpretation during trace projection).

Actually the opposite, the literature suggests combining passes produces better code, not the latter 😉. I think we just want a clean separation of concerns though.

[brandtbucher]

This can wait until the mythical second pass is implemented.