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-117657: Fix small issues with instrumentation and TSAN #118064

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 30, 2024

Conversation

DinoV
Copy link
Contributor

@DinoV DinoV commented Apr 18, 2024

There's some races around reading and updating bytecodes with instrumentation. This switches to using atomic operations as these races are all benign.

@@ -588,9 +589,10 @@ de_instrument(PyCodeObject *code, int i, int event)
return;
}
CHECK(_PyOpcode_Deopt[deinstrumented] == deinstrumented);
*opcode_ptr = deinstrumented;
FT_ATOMIC_STORE_UINT8_RELAXED(*opcode_ptr, deinstrumented);
Copy link
Contributor

@mpage mpage Apr 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is relaxed strong enough? Do any consumers need to see the updates that are sequenced-before this store? Same comment applies to the below instances of using relaxed stores to update bytecode.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In the deinstrumented case if we race and still see the instrumented opcode the data will still be there. In the instrumented case I think we do need some more synchronization around the tooling metadata, if we see the instrumented opcode before seeing the writes to the data that'll be bad.

I had originally had synchronizeds reads/writes around that in d8ea6bb#diff-adaefb7da847260ef7aff6e66007bc83f5b226c5389a23e1c9ea622c3b02c419 but the thought was that the synchronization around _PyFrame_GetCode(frame)->_co_instrumentation_version would be sufficient (which is in the latest version of #116775).

But that doesn't actually seem to be good enough - there's still some rare TSAN failures around the instrumentation data. But my plan is to push the synchronization there instead of on the opcode because I don't think we want to do acquire loads on the byte code which would be required to make a release write here meaningful.

@DinoV DinoV force-pushed the nogil_settrace_tsan branch from 1288090 to d715d18 Compare April 19, 2024 18:35
@DinoV DinoV marked this pull request as ready for review April 19, 2024 19:26
@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

Apologies for my cluelessness. Does this have any effect on a non-free-threading build? Or do those macros do nothing in that case?

@colesbury
Copy link
Contributor

The macros do nothing in the non-free-threaded build (i.e., they are just plain C load/stores).

@DinoV DinoV force-pushed the nogil_settrace_tsan branch from d715d18 to 5493306 Compare April 23, 2024 17:57
@DinoV DinoV force-pushed the nogil_settrace_tsan branch from 5493306 to 2429aaf Compare April 24, 2024 22:23
@DinoV DinoV merged commit 4a1cf66 into python:main Apr 30, 2024
49 of 53 checks passed
SonicField pushed a commit to SonicField/cpython that referenced this pull request May 8, 2024
@DinoV DinoV deleted the nogil_settrace_tsan branch May 31, 2024 18:22
mpage added a commit to mpage/cpython that referenced this pull request Sep 10, 2024
- Fix a few places where we were not using atomics to (de)instrument
  opcodes.
- Fix a few places where we weren't using atomics to reset adaptive
  counters.
- Remove some redundant non-atomic resets of adaptive counters that
  presumably snuck as merge artifacts of python#118064
  and python#117144 landing close
  together.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants