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 2.19] #11878

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: 2.19
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

github-actions[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot commented Jan 8, 2025

Backport 983c84f from #11460 to 2.19.

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 January 8, 2025 19:43
@sanchda
Copy link
Contributor

sanchda commented Jan 8, 2025

Hello, I'm an idiot who forgot to set a backport tag and I approve this message.

@nsrip-dd
Copy link
Contributor

nsrip-dd commented Jan 8, 2025

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Jan 8, 2025

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2025-01-08 19:52:16 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.


2025-01-08 20:07:40 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

This pull request was closed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

github-actions bot commented Jan 8, 2025

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

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Jan 8, 2025

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2025-01-10 15:49:55

Comparing candidate commit 1df7aae in PR branch backport-11460-to-2.19 with baseline commit 8d79908 in branch 2.19.

Found 0 performance improvements and 1 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 393 metrics, 2 unstable metrics.

scenario:flasksimple-profiler

  • 🟥 execution_time [+1.494ms; +1.502ms] or [+74.920%; +75.310%]

@taegyunkim taegyunkim enabled auto-merge (squash) January 8, 2025 21:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants