Skip to content
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

fix(profiler): update memalloc guard [backport 2.17] #11801

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: 2.17
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

github-actions[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Backport 983c84f from #11460 to 2.17.

Previously, the memory allocation profiler would use Python's builtin thread-local storage interfaces in order to set and get the state of a thread-local guard.

I've updated a few things here.

  • I think get/set idioms are slightly problematic for this type of code, since it pushes the responsibility of maintaining clean internal state up to the parent. A consequence of this is that the propagation of the underlying state by value opens the door for race conditions if execution changes between contexts (unlikely here, but I think minimizing indirection is still cleaner). Accordingly, I've updated this to use native thread-local storage
  • Based on @nsrip-dd's observation, I widened the guard over free() operations. I believe this is correct, and if it isn't then the detriment is performance, not correctness.
  • I got rid of the PY37 failovers

We don't have any reproductions for the defects that prompted this change, but I've been running a patched library in an environment that does reproduce the behavior, and I haven't seen any defects.

  1. I don't believe this patch is harmful, and if our memory allocation tests pass then I believe it should be fine.
  2. I have a reason to believe this fixes a critical defect, which can cause crashes.

Checklist

  • PR author has checked that all the criteria below are met
  • The PR description includes an overview of the change
  • The PR description articulates the motivation for the change
  • The change includes tests OR the PR description describes a testing strategy
  • The PR description notes risks associated with the change, if any
  • Newly-added code is easy to change
  • The change follows the library release note guidelines
  • The change includes or references documentation updates if necessary
  • Backport labels are set (if applicable)

Reviewer Checklist

  • Reviewer has checked that all the criteria below are met
  • Title is accurate
  • All changes are related to the pull request's stated goal
  • Avoids breaking API changes
  • Testing strategy adequately addresses listed risks
  • Newly-added code is easy to change
  • Release note makes sense to a user of the library
  • If necessary, author has acknowledged and discussed the performance implications of this PR as reported in the benchmarks PR comment
  • Backport labels are set in a manner that is consistent with the release branch maintenance policy

Previously, the memory allocation profiler would use Python's builtin
thread-local storage interfaces in order to set and get the state of a
thread-local guard.

I've updated a few things here.

* I think get/set idioms are slightly problematic for this type of code,
since it pushes the responsibility of maintaining clean internal state
up to the parent. A consequence of this is that the propagation of the
underlying state _by value_ opens the door for race conditions if
execution changes between contexts (unlikely here, but I think
minimizing indirection is still cleaner). Accordingly, I've updated this
to use native thread-local storage
* Based on @nsrip-dd's observation, I widened the guard over `free()`
operations. I believe this is correct, and if it isn't then the
detriment is performance, not correctness.
* I got rid of the PY37 failovers

We don't have any reproductions for the defects that prompted this
change, but I've been running a patched library in an environment that
_does_ reproduce the behavior, and I haven't seen any defects.

1. I don't believe this patch is harmful, and if our memory allocation
tests pass then I believe it should be fine.
2. I have a reason to believe this fixes a critical defect, which can
cause crashes.

## Checklist
- [X] PR author has checked that all the criteria below are met
- The PR description includes an overview of the change
- The PR description articulates the motivation for the change
- The change includes tests OR the PR description describes a testing
strategy
- The PR description notes risks associated with the change, if any
- Newly-added code is easy to change
- The change follows the [library release note
guidelines](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/stable/releasenotes.html)
- The change includes or references documentation updates if necessary
- Backport labels are set (if
[applicable](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#backporting))

## Reviewer Checklist
- [x] Reviewer has checked that all the criteria below are met
- Title is accurate
- All changes are related to the pull request's stated goal
- Avoids breaking
[API](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/stable/versioning.html#interfaces)
changes
- Testing strategy adequately addresses listed risks
- Newly-added code is easy to change
- Release note makes sense to a user of the library
- If necessary, author has acknowledged and discussed the performance
implications of this PR as reported in the benchmarks PR comment
- Backport labels are set in a manner that is consistent with the
[release branch maintenance
policy](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#backporting)

(cherry picked from commit 983c84f)
@github-actions github-actions bot requested review from a team as code owners December 19, 2024 19:44
@github-actions github-actions bot requested review from juanjux and quinna-h December 19, 2024 19:44
@taegyunkim taegyunkim closed this Dec 19, 2024
@taegyunkim taegyunkim reopened this Dec 19, 2024
Copy link
Contributor Author

CODEOWNERS have been resolved as:

ddtrace/profiling/collector/_memalloc_reentrant.c                       @DataDog/profiling-python
releasenotes/notes/fix-profiling-memalloc-segfault-5593ad951405a75d.yaml  @DataDog/apm-python
ddtrace/profiling/collector/_memalloc.c                                 @DataDog/profiling-python
ddtrace/profiling/collector/_memalloc_heap.c                            @DataDog/profiling-python
ddtrace/profiling/collector/_memalloc_reentrant.h                       @DataDog/profiling-python
ddtrace/profiling/collector/_memalloc_tb.c                              @DataDog/profiling-python
ddtrace/profiling/collector/_pymacro.h                                  @DataDog/profiling-python
setup.py                                                                @DataDog/python-guild

@datadog-dd-trace-py-rkomorn
Copy link

Datadog Report

Branch report: backport-11460-to-2.17
Commit report: 1acc2af
Test service: dd-trace-py

✅ 0 Failed, 606 Passed, 680 Skipped, 18m 45.11s Total duration (14m 49.21s time saved)

@sanchda sanchda closed this Dec 19, 2024
@sanchda sanchda reopened this Dec 19, 2024
@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2024-12-19 20:25:52

Comparing candidate commit 1acc2af in PR branch backport-11460-to-2.17 with baseline commit 7a275e6 in branch 2.17.

Found 1 performance improvements and 1 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 386 metrics, 2 unstable metrics.

scenario:flasksimple-profiler

  • 🟥 execution_time [+1.496ms; +1.505ms] or [+74.925%; +75.404%]

scenario:iast_aspects-ospathbasename_aspect

  • 🟩 execution_time [-375.234ns; -310.808ns] or [-9.902%; -8.202%]

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants