Repository navigation
Optimizing super().meth() via adaptive superinstructions #242
Description
Activity
CPython PR is at python/cpython#30992.
@markshannon your 3.11 TODO reminded me that this is dead in the water. Do you think this will ever be worth it?
With the new inline cache infrastructure. It is easier to share caches across multiple instructions. But IMO the complexity involved makes it unpalatable.
For the record, the PR above measured no speedups in pyperformance, but in
super()microbenchmarks, it sawsuper().meth()speeding up by nearly 2.2x. Withsuper().meth()now only having a ~10% slowdown overself.meth()(basically, non-existent in the real world), versus a 2x slowdown previously. In fact, the newsuper.meth()is as fast as or even faster than pre-3.11 plainself.meth()calls thanks to caching of method lookups.Hi @Fidget-Spinner I'm a little confused about what you're saying at the end. I understand the PR (that won't ever be merged) saw a 2.2 speedup. After that, are you saying that in the main branch, super().meth() is now 10% slower than self.meth(), which is an improvement over that ratio for 3.10?
@gvanrossum Sorry, I meant specifically in that PR,
super().meth()is only 10% slower thanself.meth(). In 3.10,super().meth()was around 2x slower thanself.meth().On main, it should still be around 2x slower. Although we optimized
super()with vectorcall support, we also optimizedself.meth()via specialization. Most likely the latter outstrips the former. I have yet to benchmark main recently.Reacted by Guido van Rossum@Fidget-Spinner Do we still need this issue?
@gvanrossum Nope. Carl has has merged his version, so it's done.
Please see #239 for the discussion and https://bugs.python.org/issue46564 for the BPO.