Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork32.4k
gh-136396: Include instrumentation when creating new copies of the bytecode#136525
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Merged
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Previously, we assumed that instrumentation would happen for all copies ofthe bytecode if the instrumentation version on the code object didn't matchthe per-interpreter instrumentation version. That assumption was incorrect:instrumentation will exit early if there are no new "events," even if thereis an instrumentation version mismatch.To fix this, include the instrumented opcodes when creating new copies ofthe bytecode, rather than replacing them with their uninstrumented variants.I don't think we have to worry about races between instrumentation and creatingnew copies of the bytecode: instrumentation and new bytecode creation cannot happenconcurrently. Instrumentation requires that either the world is stopped or thecode object's per-object lock is held and new bytecode creation requires holdingthe code object's per-object lock.
colesbury approved these changesJul 11, 2025
Yhg1s approved these changesJul 14, 2025
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
d995922 intopython:main 41 checks passed
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Thanks@mpage for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14. |
miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull requestJul 14, 2025
…the bytecode (pythonGH-136525)Previously, we assumed that instrumentation would happen for all copies ofthe bytecode if the instrumentation version on the code object didn't matchthe per-interpreter instrumentation version. That assumption was incorrect:instrumentation will exit early if there are no new "events," even if thereis an instrumentation version mismatch.To fix this, include the instrumented opcodes when creating new copies ofthe bytecode, rather than replacing them with their uninstrumented variants.I don't think we have to worry about races between instrumentation and creatingnew copies of the bytecode: instrumentation and new bytecode creation cannot happenconcurrently. Instrumentation requires that either the world is stopped or thecode object's per-object lock is held and new bytecode creation requires holdingthe code object's per-object lock.(cherry picked from commitd995922)Co-authored-by: mpage <mpage@meta.com>
GH-136657 is a backport of this pull request to the3.14 branch. |
colesbury pushed a commit that referenced this pull requestJul 15, 2025
… the bytecode (GH-136525) (GH-136657)Previously, we assumed that instrumentation would happen for all copies ofthe bytecode if the instrumentation version on the code object didn't matchthe per-interpreter instrumentation version. That assumption was incorrect:instrumentation will exit early if there are no new "events," even if thereis an instrumentation version mismatch.To fix this, include the instrumented opcodes when creating new copies ofthe bytecode, rather than replacing them with their uninstrumented variants.I don't think we have to worry about races between instrumentation and creatingnew copies of the bytecode: instrumentation and new bytecode creation cannot happenconcurrently. Instrumentation requires that either the world is stopped or thecode object's per-object lock is held and new bytecode creation requires holdingthe code object's per-object lock.(cherry picked from commitd995922)Co-authored-by: mpage <mpage@meta.com>Co-authored-by: Kumar Aditya <kumaraditya@python.org>
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Previously, we assumed that instrumentation would happen for all copies of the bytecode if the instrumentation version on the code object didn't match the per-interpreter instrumentation version. That assumption was incorrect: instrumentation will exit early if there are no new "events," even if there is an instrumentation version mismatch.
To fix this, include the instrumented opcodes when creating new copies of the bytecode, rather than replacing them with their uninstrumented variants. I don't think we have to worry about races between instrumentation and creating new copies of the bytecode as they cannot happen concurrently. Instrumentation requires that either the world is stopped or the code object's per-object lock is held, while new bytecode creation requires holding the code object's per-object lock.