[Cython] Calling gil-requiring function not allowed without gil

[Robert Bradshaw]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
<d.s.seljebotn at astro.uio.no> wrote:
> On 08/17/2011 09:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> <d.s.seljebotn at astro.uio.no>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/17/2011 08:19 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's a nice idea. I have to admit that all these special gil
>>>> declarations are a bit messy. I'd also rather introduce clear
>>>> decorators, e.g.
>>>>
>>>> @cython.requires_gil  # expects gil
>>>> cdef a(): ...
>>>>
>>>> @cython.requires.gil(False) # nogil
>>>> cdef b(): ...
>>>>
>>>> @cython.aquires_gil  # with gil
>>>> cdef c(): ...
>>>>
>>>> (Actually, now that we have the "with gil" statement, it could be
>>>> worth considering simply noticing the pattern of the entire function
>>>> body in a with gil block/as the first statement and acquiring the GIL
>>>> before argument parsing.)
>>>>
>>>> Note that we need to declare functions as requiring the GIL to allow
>>>> for declaring cpython.pxd if extern functions are implicitly nogil.
>>>
>>> I agree, it's messy in the current situation, simplifying would be good.
>>>
>>> Assuming we can't acquire the GIL in every single function just to be
>>> sure,
>>> I have a hunch that the "acquires_gil" aspect of a function is just
>>> declared
>>> in the wrong place. I mean, the same function might be passed as a
>>> callback
>>> to C both while holding the GIL and while not holding the GIL -- it would
>>> be
>>> nice to automatically wrap it in a GIL-acquiring wrapper only when
>>> needed.
>>>
>>> So to me it makes more sense to have acquires_gil be part of function
>>> pointer types, or of the C call where the pointer is passed, or similar.
>>> Sort of like an FFI. Can't think of a practical scheme that's more
>>> user-friendly than the current way though...
>>
>> I was thinking the opposite, "aquires_gil" should be completely
>> transparent to the caller (assuming it's cheap enough to
>> check-or-acquire, but that's an optimization not API issue). On the
>> other hand requires/does not require does need to be visible to the
>> caller though, which argues for it being part of the signature.
>
> Are you saying that every single function cdef function, ever, that are not
> "nogil" should have acqusition semantics?

No, I was saying that the distinction between with gil and nogil
should be transparent (semantically) to the caller.

> Those semantics would be great, but I worry a bit about performance -- we
> just agreed to make function GIL-acquisition even a bit more expensive with
> that check...

According to your timings, the performance argument is a good one.

> Hmm. How about this:
>
>  i) Every cdef function that needs the GIL to be held generates a
> GIL-acquiring wrapper function as well.
>
>  ii) Whenever taking the address of such a function, you get the address of
> the GIL-requiring wrapper, which can safely be used from any code, whether
> holding the GIL or not.

You mean GIL-acquiring wrapper, right?

>  iii) However, Cython code that already holds the GIL can call the inner
> function directly, as an optimization. Should be possible to do this across
> pxd's as well.
>
>  iv) We may introduce a cython.nogil_function_address or similar just to
> provide an option to get around ii).
>
>  v) The "with gil" on functions simply ceases to take effect, and is
> deprecated from the language.
>
>> Regarding inference, are you thinking the semantics being that we
>> (re)-acquire the GIL for every individual operation that needs it
>> (including python operations or entire with gil blocks), with the
>> obvious optimization that we may choose to not release it between
>> (nearly) consecutive blocks of code that all need the GIL? That would
>> be truer to Python semantics, but would require risky guesswork at
>> compile time or some kind of periodic runtime checks. (It would also
>> be a strongly backwards incompatible move, so as mentioned you'd need
>> some kind of a explicit marker and deprecation period.)
>>
>
> No, I wasn't talking about this at all (this time on the list -- I did
> mention that I wished for this behaviour in Munich, but that's really long
> term).
>
> All I wished for now was for simple code like this:
>
> cdef double f(double x): return x**2 + x
>
> to be callable without holding the GIL. In particular since this is the
> major reason why prange users need to learn the "nogil" keyword.
>
> The semantics are simple: For all cdef functions, if "nogil" could have been
> applied without a syntax error, then it gets automatically applied.

Give that the implicit nogil marker is a function of the function's
body, how would this information be propagated across pxd files?
Perhaps I'm confused, we have

cdef double f(double x):   # implicitly nogil
    return x**2 + x

cdef double f(double x):    # implicitly "with gil" or implicitly
"requires gil"?
    print x
    return x**2 + x

If "with gil" then constant, implicit gil acquisition could be a
non-obvious performance hit; if "requires gil" then I don't see how to
propagate accross .pxd files. (I do like the direction this is
heading, just pointing out some cons.)

> The only time this isn't completely safe is when the GIL is intentionally
> being used as a lock.

Or unintentionally being used as a lock... (Yes, that'd be user
error.) The idea that adding a print statement to a function's body
can produce such a large change is somewhat worrisome, but perhaps
worth it.

- Robert