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

[Robert Bradshaw]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Robert Bradshaw
<robertwb at math.washington.edu> wrote:
> 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.)

On second though, "with gil" (= "acquires gil") isn't that bad,
because the mantra of "look for unneeded Python operations" to speed
up your code directly applies here, and acquiring the GIL is about as
expensive as the one or two operations that requested it.

>> 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
>