-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 876
fix races when initializing #[pyclass]
type objects
#5341
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
Open
davidhewitt
wants to merge
2
commits into
PyO3:main
Choose a base branch
from
davidhewitt:disallow-races
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+159
−138
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
Fix data races inside Python type objects when initializing `#[pyclass]` types. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Just to be sure I get the logic here:
The idea is that multiple threads might acquire a guard here, but only one of them will be able to will start the initialization due to the
PyOnceLock
. After that theThreadId
will be set, so any re-entrant call will be guaranteed to not get a guard and return early. On the success path the other threads will just retrieve the typeobject from thePyOnceLock
and in the failure case the next thread will attempt initialization.Is that roughly right?
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.
Yes, though the more I think about this I think there might be deadlock risks in other more perverse cases e.g.
A
andB
which each have a class attribute of the other's type.I feel like it might be that this
InitializationGuard
stuff is excessive and we should just ensure that only one thread ever enters this dict initialization step, I think rather than just avoid re-entrancy we might want to do something like always return the type object if any thread is currently attempting initialization.I guess there's a secondary concern about what happens if one attribute fails to compute partway through, some attributes might be set and others not. Is that ok?
Maybe there's an argument that we should spend some more time thinking about this, get it right once in 0.27, and document the full behaviour properly at the same time.