Designing thread pickling or “the Essence of Stackless Python”¶
Note from 2007-07-22: This document is slightly out of date and should be turned into a description of pickling. Some research is necessary to get rid of explicit resume points, etc…
Thread pickling is a unique feature in Stackless Python and should be implemented for PyPy pretty soon.
What is meant by pickling?¶
I’d like to define thread pickling as a restartable subset of a running program. The re-runnable part should be based upon Python frame chains, represented by coroutines, tasklets or any other application level switchable subcontext. It is surely possible to support pickling of arbitrary interplevel state, but this seems to be not mandatory as long as we consider Stackless as the reference implementation. Extensions of this might be considered when the basic task is fulfilled.
Pickling should create a re-startable coroutine-alike thing that can run on a different machine, same Python version, but not necessarily the same PyPy translation. This belongs to the harder parts.
What is not meant by pickling?¶
Saving the whole memory state and writing a loader that reconstructs the whole binary with its state im memory is not what I consider a real solution. In some sense, this can be a fall-back if we fail in every other case, but I consider it really nasty for the C backend.
If we had a dynamic backend that supports direct creation of the program and its state (example: a Forth backend), I would see it as a valid solution, since it is relocatable. It is of course a possible fall-back to write such a backend of we fail otherwise.
There are some simple steps and some more difficult ones. Let’s start with the simple.
Pickling of a running thread involves a bit more than normal object pickling, because there exist many objects which don’t have a pickling interface, and people would not care about pickling them at all. But with thread pickling, these objects simply exist as local variables and are needed to restore the current runtime environment, and the user should not have to know what goes into the pickle.
to name just a few. Fortunately most of these objects already have got a pickling implementation in Stackless Python, namely the prickelpit.c file.
It should be simple and straightforward to redo these implementations. Nevertheless there is a complication. The most natural way to support pickling is providing a __getstate__/__setstate__ method pair. This is ok for extension types like coroutines/tasklets which we can control, but it should be avoided for existing types.
Consider for instance frames. We would have to add a __getstate__ and a __setstate__ method, which is an interface change. Furthermore, we would need to support creation of frames by calling the frame type, which is not really intended.
For other types with are already callable, things get more complicated because we need to make sure that creating new instances does not interfere with existing ways to call the type.
Directly adding a pickling interface to existing types is quite likely to produce overlaps in the calling interface. This happened for instance, when the module type became callable, and the signature was different from what Stackless added before.
For Stackless, I used the copyreg module, instead, and created special surrogate objects as placeholders, which replace the type of the object after unpickling with the right type pointer. For details, see the prickelpit.c file in the Stackless distribution.
As a conclusion, pickling of tasklets is an addition to Stackless, but not meant to be an extension to Python. The need to support pickling of certain objects should not change the interface. It is better to decouple this and to use surrogate types for pickling which cannot collide with future additions to Python.
The real problem¶
There are currently some crucial differences between Stackless Python (SLP for now) and the PyPy Stackless support (PyPy for now) as far as it is grown. When CPython does a call to a Python function, there are several helper functions involved for adjusting parameters, unpacking methods and some more. SLP takes a hard time to remove all these C functions from the C stack before starting the Python interpreter for the function. This change of behavior is done manually for all the helper functions by figuring out, which variables are still needed after the call. It turns out that in most cases, it is possible to let all the helper functions finish their work and return form the function call before the interpreter is started at all.
This is the major difference which needs to be tackled for PyPy. Whenever we run a Python function, quite a number of functions incarnate on the C stack, and they get not finished before running the new frame. In case of a coroutine switch, we just save the whole chain of activation records - c function entrypoints with the saved block variables. This is ok for coroutine switching, but in the sense of SLP, it is rather incomplete and not stackless at all. The stack still exists, we can unwind and rebuild it, but it is a problem.
Why a problem?¶
In an ideal world, thread pickling would just be building chains of pickled frames and nothing else. For every different extra activation record like mentioned above, we have the problem of how to save this information. We need a representation which is not machine or compiler dependent. Right now, PyPy is quite unstable in terms of which blocks it will produce, what gets inlined, etc. The best solution possible is to try to get completely rid of these extra structures.
Unfortunately this is not even possible with SLP, because there are different flavors of state which make it hard to go without extra information.
SLP switching strategies¶
SLP has undergone several rewrites. The first implementation was aiming at complete collaboration. A new frame’s execution was deferred until all the preparational C function calls had left the C stack. There was no extra state to be saved.
Well, this is only partially true - there are a couple of situations where a recursive call could not be avoided, since the necessary support would require heavy rewriting of the implementation.
- map is a stateful implementation of iterating over a sequence of operations. It can be made non-recursive if the map operation creates its own frame to keep state.
- __init__ looks trivial, but the semantics is that the return value of __init__ is supposed to be None, and CPy has a special check for this after the call. This might simply be ignored, but it is a simple example for a case that cannot be handled automatically.
- things like operator.__add__ can theoretically generate a wild pattern of recursive calls while CPy tries to figure out if it is a numeric add or a sequence add, and other callbacks may occur when methods like __coerce__ get involved. This will never be solved for SLP, but might get a solution by the strategy outlined below.
The second implementation took a radically different approach. Context switches were done by hijacking parts of the C stack, storing them away and replacing them by the stack fragment that the target needs. This is very powerful and allows to switch even in the context of foreign code. With a little risk, I was even able to add concurrency to foreign Fortran code.
The above concept is called Hard (switching), the collaborative Soft (switching). Note that an improved version of Hard is still the building block for greenlets, which makes them not really green - I’d name it yellow.
The latest SLP rewrites combine both ideas, trying to use Soft whenever possible, but using Hard when nested interpreters are in the way.
Notabene, it was never tried to pickle tasklets when Hard was involved. In SLP, pickling works with Soft. To gather more pickleable situations, you need to invent new frame types or write replacement Python code and switch it using Soft.
Analogies between SLP and PyPy¶
Right now, PyPy saves C state of functions in tiny activation records: the alive variables of a block, together with the entry point of the function that was left. This is an improvement over storing raw stack slices, but the pattern is similar: The C stack state gets restored when we switch.
In this sense, it was the astonishing resume when Richard and I discussed this last week: PyPy essentially does a variant of Hard switching! At least it does a compromise that does not really help with pickling.
On the other hand, this approach is half the way. It turns out to be an improvement over SLP not to have to avoid recursions in the first place. Instead, it seems to be even more elegant and efficient to get rid of unnecessary state right in the context of a switch and no earlier!
Ways to handle the problem in a minimalistic way¶
Comparing the different approaches of SLP and PyPy, it appears to be not necessary to change the interpreter in the first place. PyPy does not need to change its calling behavior in order to be cooperative. The key point is to find out which activation records need to be stored at all. This should be possible to identify as a part of the stackless transform.
Consider the simple most common case of calling a normal Python function. There are several calls to functions involved, which do preparational steps. Without trying to be exact (this is part of the work to be done), involved steps are
- decode the arguments of the function
- prepare a new frame
- store the arguments in the frame
- execute the frame
- return the result
Now assume that we do not execute the frame, but do a context switch instead, then right now a sequence of activation records is stored on the heap. If we want to re-activate this chain of activation records, what do we really need to restore before we can do the function call?
- the argument decoding is done, already, and the fact that we could have done the function call shows, that no exception occurred. We can ignore the rest of this activation record and do the housekeeping.
- the frame is prepared, and arguments are stored in it. The operation succeeded, and we have the frame. We can ignore exception handling and just do housekeeping by getting rid of references.
- for executing the frame, we need a special function that executes frames. It is possible that we need different flavors due to contexts. SLP does this by using different registered functions which operate on a frame, depending on the frame’s state (first entry, reentry after call, returning, yielding etc)
- after executing the frame, exceptions need to be handled in the usual way, and we should return to the issuer of the call.
Some deeper analysis is needed to get these things correct. But it should have become quite clear, that after all the preparational steps have been done, there is no other state necessary than what we have in the Python frames: bound arguments, instruction pointer, that’s it.
My proposal is now to do such an analysis by hand, identify the different cases to be handled, and then trying to find an algorithm that automatically identifies the blocks in the whole program, where the restoring of the C stack can be avoided, and we can jump back to the previous caller, directly.
A rough sketch of the necessary analysis:
for every block in an RPython function that can reach unwind: Analyze control flow. It should be immediately leading to the return block with only one output variable. All other alive variables should have ended their liveness in this block.
I think this will not work in the first place. For the bound frame arguments for instance, I think we need some notation that these are held by the frame, and we can drop their liveness before doing the call, hence we don’t need to save these variables in the activation record, and hence the whole activation record can be removed.
As a conclusion of this incomplete first analysis, it seems to be necessary to identify useless activation records in order to support pickling. The remaining, irreducible activation records should then be those which hold a reference to a Python frame. Such a chain is pickleable if its root points back to the context switching code of the interp-level implementation of coroutines.
As an observation, this transform not only enables pickling, but also is an optimization, if we can avoid saving many activation records.
Another possible observation which I hope to be able to prove is this: The remaining irreducible activation records which don’t just hold a Python frame are those which should be considered special. They should be turned into something like special frames, and they would be the key to make PyPy completely stackless, a goal which is practically impossible for SLP! These activation records would need to become part of the official interface and need to get naming support for their necessary functions.
I wish to stop this paper here. I believe everything else needs to be tried in an implementation, and this is so far all I can do just with imagination.
best - chris
Just an addition after some more thinking¶
Actually it struck me after checking this in, that the problem of determining which blocks need to save state and which not it not really a Stackless problem. It is a system-immanent problem of a missing optimization that we still did not try to solve.
Speaking in terms of GC transform, and especially the refcounting, it is probably easy to understand what I mean. Our current refcounting implementation is naive, in the sense that we do not try to do the optimizations which every extension writer does by hand: We do not try to save references.
This is also why I’m always arguing that refcounting can be and effectively is efficient, because CPython does it very well.
Our refcounting is not aware of variable lifeness, it does not track references which are known to be held by other objects. Optimizing that would do two things: The refcounting would become very efficient, since we would save some 80 % of it. The second part, which is relevant to the pickling problem is this: By doing a proper analysis, we already would have lost references to all the variables which we don’t need to save any longer, because we know that they are held in, for instance, frames.
I hope you understand that: If we improve the life-time analysis of variables, the sketched problem of above about which blocks need to save state and which don’t, should become trivial and should just vanish. Doing this correctly will solve the pickling problem quasi automatically, leading to a more efficient implementation at the same time.
I hope I told the truth and will try to prove it.
ciao - chris