Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34k
GH-139951: Fix major GC performance regression#140262
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
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
markshannon commented Oct 17, 2025 • edited by bedevere-app bot
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
edited by bedevere-app bot
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
* Count number of actually tracked objects, instead of trackable objects. This ensures that untracking tuples has the desired effect of reducing GC overhead * Do not track most untrackable tuples during creation. This prevents large numbers of small tuples causing execessive GCs.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
sergey-miryanov commented Oct 18, 2025
I'm not sure I get what android (x86_64) fails.
|
mhsmith commented Oct 19, 2025
I'm not at all familiar with the garbage collector, but one of the ways that Android differs from the other platforms is that it runs all the test suite serially in a single process. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
sergey-miryanov left a comment
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.
Code looks good to me, thanks!
sergey-miryanov commented Oct 21, 2025 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Should we redo the benchmarks to see how the final version impacts performance? Maybe we can run it on https://github.com/faster-cpython/benchmarking-public (but I don't know how). |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core_and_Builtins/2025-10-17-18-03-12.gh-issue-139951.IdwM2O.rst Outdated Show resolvedHide resolved
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
0c01090 into python:mainUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Thanks @markshannon for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14. |
* Count number of actually tracked objects, instead of trackable objects. This ensures that untracking tuples has the desired effect of reducing GC overhead * Do not track most untrackable tuples during creation. This prevents large numbers of small tuples causing execessive GCs. (cherry picked from commit 0c01090) Co-authored-by: Mark Shannon <mark@hotpy.org>
GH-140423 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
…-140262 (GH-140447) * Count number of actually tracked objects, instead of trackable objects. This ensures that untracking tuples has the desired effect of reducing GC overhead * Do not track most untrackable tuples during creation. This prevents large numbers of small tuples causing execessive GCs.
This reverts parts of the pythonGH-140262 change. The changes that affect the tuple untracking are left unchanged. Revert the changes to the calculation of the increment size, based on the "work_to_do" variable. This causes cyclic garbage to be collected more quickly. Revert also the change to test_gc.py, which was done because the expected GC collection was taking longer to happen. With the tuple untrack change, the performance regression as reported by bug pythonGH-139951 is still resolved (work_to_do changes are not required).
* Count number of actually tracked objects, instead of trackable objects. This ensures that untracking tuples has the desired effect of reducing GC overhead * Do not track most untrackable tuples during creation. This prevents large numbers of small tuples causing execessive GCs.
This reverts parts of the pythonGH-140262 change. The changes that affect the tuple untracking are left unchanged. Revert the changes to the calculation of the increment size, based on the "work_to_do" variable. This causes cyclic garbage to be collected more quickly. Revert also the change to test_gc.py, which was done because the expected GC collection was taking longer to happen. With the tuple untrack change, the performance regression as reported by bug pythonGH-139951 is still resolved (work_to_do changes are not required).
This reverts parts of the pythonGH-140262 change. The changes that affect the tuple untracking are left unchanged. Revert the changes to the calculation of the increment size, based on the "work_to_do" variable. This causes cyclic garbage to be collected more quickly. Revert also the change to test_gc.py, which was done because the expected GC collection was taking longer to happen. With the tuple untrack change, the performance regression as reported by bug pythonGH-139951 is still resolved (work_to_do changes are not required).
This PR:
For the example in the original report this makes performance on main a bit better than 3.13.
Benchmarking results show this is about neutral on performance otherwise.