Feature #14045
closedLazy Proc allocation for block parameters
Description
Background¶
If we need to pass given block, we need to capture by block parameter as a Proc object and pass it parameter as a block argument. Like that:
def block_yield
yield
end
def block_pass &b
# do something
block_yield(&b)
end
There are no way to pass given blocks to other methods without using block parameters.
One problem of this technique is performance. Proc
creation is one of heavyweight operation because we need to store all of local variables (represented by Env objects in MRI internal) to heap. If block parameter is declared as one of method parameter, we need to make a new Proc
object for the block parameter.
Proposal: Lazy Proc allocation for¶
To avoid this overhead, I propose lazy Proc creation for block parameters.
Ideas:
- At the beginning of method, a block parameter is
nil
- If block parameter is accessed, then create a
Proc
object by given block. - If we pass the block parameter to other methods like
block_yield(&b)
then don't make aProc
, but pass given block information.
We don't optimize b.call
type block invocations. If we call block with b.call
, then create Proc
object.We need to hack more because Proc#call
is different from yield
statement (especially they can change $SAFE
).
Evaluation¶
def iter_yield
yield
end
def iter_pass &b
iter_yield(&b)
end
def iter_yield_bp &b
yield
end
def iter_call &b
b.call
end
N = 10_000_000 # 10M
require 'benchmark'
Benchmark.bmbm(10){|x|
x.report("yield"){
N.times{
iter_yield{}
}
}
x.report("yield_bp"){
N.times{
iter_yield_bp{}
}
}
x.report("yield_pass"){
N.times{
iter_pass{}
}
}
x.report("send_pass"){
N.times{
send(:iter_pass){}
}
}
x.report("call"){
N.times{
iter_call{}
}
}
}
__END__
ruby 2.5.0dev (2017-10-24 trunk 60392) [x86_64-linux]
user system total real
yield 0.634891 0.000000 0.634891 ( 0.634518)
yield_bp 2.770929 0.000008 2.770937 ( 2.769743)
yield_pass 3.047114 0.000000 3.047114 ( 3.046895)
send_pass 3.322597 0.000002 3.322599 ( 3.323657)
call 3.144668 0.000000 3.144668 ( 3.143812)
modified
user system total real
yield 0.582620 0.000000 0.582620 ( 0.582526)
yield_bp 0.731068 0.000000 0.731068 ( 0.730315)
yield_pass 0.926866 0.000000 0.926866 ( 0.926902)
send_pass 1.110110 0.000000 1.110110 ( 1.109579)
call 2.891364 0.000000 2.891364 ( 2.890716)
Related work¶
To delegate the given block to other methods, Single &
block parameter had been proposed (https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/3447#note-18) (using like: def foo(&); bar(&); end
). This idea is straightforward to represent block passing
. Also we don't need to name a block parameter.
The advantage of this ticket proposal is we don't change any syntax. We can write compatible code for past versions.
Thanks,
Koichi
Updated by duerst (Martin Dürst) about 7 years ago
I very much support this proposal. I have discussed ideas in this direction with Koichi earlier, but at that time was told that it may be too difficult to implement. I'm very glad to see that Koichi managed to implement it!
Updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada) about 7 years ago
- Status changed from Open to Closed
Applied in changeset trunk|r60397.
Lazy Proc allocation for block parameters
[Feature #14045]
-
insns.def (getblockparam, setblockparam): add special access
instructions for block parameters.
getblockparam checks VM_FRAME_FLAG_MODIFIED_BLOCK_PARAM and
if it is not set this instruction creates a Proc object from
a given blcok and set VM_FRAME_FLAG_MODIFIED_BLOCK_PARAM.
setblockparam is similar to setlocal, but set
VM_FRAME_FLAG_MODIFIED_BLOCK_PARAM. -
compile.c: use get/setblockparm instead get/setlocal instructions.
Note that they are used for method local block parameters (def m(&b)),
not for block local method parameters (iter{|&b|). -
proc.c (get_local_variable_ptr): creates Proc object for
Binding#local_variable_get/set. -
safe.c (safe_setter): we need to create Proc objects for postponed
block parameters when $SAFE is changed. -
vm_args.c (args_setup_block_parameter): used only for block local blcok
parameters. -
vm_args.c (vm_caller_setup_arg_block): if called with
VM_CALL_ARGS_BLOCKARG_BLOCKPARAM flag then passed block values should be
a block handler. -
test/ruby/test_optimization.rb: add tests.
-
benchmark/bm_vm1_blockparam*: added.
Updated by matthewd (Matthew Draper) about 7 years ago
This is excellent news indeed!
Do you think a similar technique could work for passing along *args
in the future?
It would be great if simple delegation could get a similar gain by going zero-allocation:
def goal a, b
a - b
end
def splat *args
goal(*args)
end
def separate a, b
goal(a, b)
end
N = 10_000_000
require "benchmark"
Benchmark.bmbm(10) {|x|
x.report("splat") {
N.times {
splat(5, 2)
}
}
x.report("separate") {
N.times {
separate(5, 2)
}
}
}
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) almost 7 years ago
- Related to Feature #11256: anonymous block forwarding added
Updated by myronmarston (Myron Marston) almost 7 years ago
This change introduces a bug in RSpec. I'm working on a work around for RSpec (and hope to cut a release with a fix soon) but users running Ruby 2.5 with an older RSpec version will be affected, and the slight change in semantics introduced by this change might create bugs in other libraries and applications as well.
In RSpec, we've defined a Hook
struct (which stores a block plus some associated metadata), and depend upon ==
working properly to compare two Hook
instances. The fact that the proc is now initialized lazily is causing problems because what is fundamentally the same block can wind up with two different proc instances, whereas it had only one before. This causes two Hook
instances which were equal before to no longer be considered equal. Here's a script that demonstrates the regression:
# regression.rb
def return_proc(&block)
block
end
def return_procs(&block)
block.inspect if ENV['INSPECT_BLOCK']
proc_1 = return_proc(&block)
proc_2 = return_proc(&block)
return proc_1, proc_2
end
proc_1, proc_2 = return_procs { }
puts RUBY_VERSION
puts "Proc equality: #{proc_1 == proc_2}"
Here's the output on Ruby 2.4 vs Ruby 2.5:
$ chruby 2.4
$ ruby regression.rb
2.4.2
Proc equality: true
$ chruby 2.5
$ ruby regression.rb
2.5.0
Proc equality: false
$ INSPECT_BLOCK=1 ruby regression.rb
2.5.0
Proc equality: true
As the output shows, the two procs were equal on 2.4 but are no longer equal on 2.5. However, if we call a method on the block (such as inspecting it), it defeats the lazy initialization and allows them to still be equal.
As I said, I'm working on addressing this change in RSpec, and while I can fairly easily fix the tests that fail as a result of this, I'm concerned that there might be other bugs this introduces that are not caught by our test suite.
Is there a way to keep this feature w/o introducing this regression? If not, it might be worth considering reverting it since it does introduce a regression, and a very subtle one at that.
Thanks!
Updated by myronmarston (Myron Marston) almost 7 years ago
For those who are interested, the work around I've implemented in RSpec is here:
From 84670489bb4943a62e783bd65f96e4b55360b141 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Myron Marston <myron.marston@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 12:22:16 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Work around regressions introduced by lazy proc allocation.
This Ruby 2.5 feature is causing bugs with our hooks because
we depend upon `Hook#==` working properly for the same source
hook block. In Ruby 2.5 they introduced lazy proc allocation
which can result in two `Hook` instances which were previously
correctly considered to be equal to no longer be considered
equal. To work around this, we just need to invoke a method on
the proc before passing it along to other methods.
Note that there might be other bugs introduced by the Ruby 2.5
change, but this fixes the only test failures due to it, so this
is all we are changing for now.
Fixes #2488.
---
lib/rspec/core/configuration.rb | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/rspec/core/configuration.rb b/lib/rspec/core/configuration.rb
index 4152173f0..b02b803df 100644
--- a/lib/rspec/core/configuration.rb
+++ b/lib/rspec/core/configuration.rb
@@ -1808,6 +1808,12 @@ def before(scope=nil, *meta, &block)
handle_suite_hook(scope, meta) do
@before_suite_hooks << Hooks::BeforeHook.new(block, {})
end || begin
+ # defeat Ruby 2.5 lazy proc allocation to ensure
+ # the methods below are passed the same proc instances
+ # so `Hook` equality is preserved. For more info, see:
+ # https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14045#note-5
+ block.__id__
+
add_hook_to_existing_matching_groups(meta, scope) { |g| g.before(scope, *meta, &block) }
super(scope, *meta, &block)
end
@@ -1831,6 +1837,12 @@ def prepend_before(scope=nil, *meta, &block)
handle_suite_hook(scope, meta) do
@before_suite_hooks.unshift Hooks::BeforeHook.new(block, {})
end || begin
+ # defeat Ruby 2.5 lazy proc allocation to ensure
+ # the methods below are passed the same proc instances
+ # so `Hook` equality is preserved. For more info, see:
+ # https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14045#note-5
+ block.__id__
+
add_hook_to_existing_matching_groups(meta, scope) { |g| g.prepend_before(scope, *meta, &block) }
super(scope, *meta, &block)
end
@@ -1849,6 +1861,12 @@ def after(scope=nil, *meta, &block)
handle_suite_hook(scope, meta) do
@after_suite_hooks.unshift Hooks::AfterHook.new(block, {})
end || begin
+ # defeat Ruby 2.5 lazy proc allocation to ensure
+ # the methods below are passed the same proc instances
+ # so `Hook` equality is preserved. For more info, see:
+ # https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14045#note-5
+ block.__id__
+
add_hook_to_existing_matching_groups(meta, scope) { |g| g.after(scope, *meta, &block) }
super(scope, *meta, &block)
end
@@ -1872,6 +1890,12 @@ def append_after(scope=nil, *meta, &block)
handle_suite_hook(scope, meta) do
@after_suite_hooks << Hooks::AfterHook.new(block, {})
end || begin
+ # defeat Ruby 2.5 lazy proc allocation to ensure
+ # the methods below are passed the same proc instances
+ # so `Hook` equality is preserved. For more info, see:
+ # https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14045#note-5
+ block.__id__
+
add_hook_to_existing_matching_groups(meta, scope) { |g| g.append_after(scope, *meta, &block) }
super(scope, *meta, &block)
end
@@ -1881,6 +1905,12 @@ def append_after(scope=nil, *meta, &block)
#
# See {Hooks#around} for full `around` hook docs.
def around(scope=nil, *meta, &block)
+ # defeat Ruby 2.5 lazy proc allocation to ensure
+ # the methods below are passed the same proc instances
+ # so `Hook` equality is preserved. For more info, see:
+ # https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14045#note-5
+ block.__id__
+
add_hook_to_existing_matching_groups(meta, scope) { |g| g.around(scope, *meta, &block) }
super(scope, *meta, &block)
end
Updated by duerst (Martin Dürst) almost 7 years ago
myronmarston (Myron Marston) wrote:
This change introduces a bug in RSpec. I'm working on a work around for RSpec (and hope to cut a release with a fix soon) but users running Ruby 2.5 with an older RSpec version will be affected, and the slight change in semantics introduced by this change might create bugs in other libraries and applications as well.
Four comments:
-
Don't report a bug on a closed feature, report it as a new bug (and link to the feature), thanks.
-
Comparing blocks/procs is always a somewhat dangerous thing.
-
Lazy allocation shouldn't mean multiple allocations. I haven't looked at the implementation, but I hope this can be fixed.
-
For a core library such as RSpec, please test the betas and release candidates (yes we know they were late this time). Things will be easier for you if you find problems earlier.
Updated by myronmarston (Myron Marston) almost 7 years ago
Don't report a bug on a closed feature, report it as a new bug (and link to the feature), thanks.
Thanks, I wasn't aware which way was preferred. I've opened #14267 to report this as a new bug.
Comparing blocks/procs is always a somewhat dangerous thing.
Agreed, but when dealing with RSpec hooks (which are fundamentally block + some metadata) this was the simplest way to make the features work. I'd have to put some more through into if we could refactor to avoid the need.
Lazy allocation shouldn't mean multiple allocations. I haven't looked at the implementation, but I hope this can be fixed.
I sure hope so!
For a core library such as RSpec, please test the betas and release candidates (yes we know they were late this time). Things will be easier for you if you find problems earlier.
I agree that would be a great idea, but to be completely honest, I'm very unlikely to make the time to do that. My open source time is very limited these days. If I have move time to spend on open source around future Ruby releases I will try to contribute in this way.
Updated by duerst (Martin Dürst) almost 7 years ago
- Related to Feature #14267: Lazy proc allocation introduced in #14045 creates regression added