#11115 closed enhancement (fixed)
Rewrite cached_method in Cython
Reported by: | SimonKing | Owned by: | jason |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.0 |
Component: | misc | Keywords: | category cython cache |
Cc: | nthiery | Merged in: | sage-5.0.beta0 |
Authors: | Simon King | Reviewers: | Nicolas M. Thiéry, Andrey Novoseltsev, Volker Braun |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | #9138, #11900 | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Broadening the original description of the ticket:
The aim is to provide a Cython version of the cached_method decorator. There are three benefits:
1) Speed (see timings in the comments)
2) Using cached methods in Cython code.
3) Parent and element methods of categories
Let me elaborate on the last point:
In order to make full use of the parent and element methods of a category, it should be possible to define a cached method in the category, so that any object of that category inherits it with caching.
Currently, it fails as follows:
sage: class MyCategory(Category): ....: def super_categories(self): ....: return [Objects()] ....: class ParentMethods: ....: @cached_method ....: def f(self, x): ....: return x^2 ....: sage: cython("""from sage.structure.parent cimport Parent ....: cdef class MyClass(Parent): pass ....: """) sage: O = MyClass(category=MyCategory()) sage: O.f(4) 16 sage: O.f(x) is O.f(x) False
So, the method is inherited, but not cached.
Apply:
Note that, if you want to remove the patches after testing them, you need to do
rm $SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/build/sage/misc/cachefunc.* rm $SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/build/*/sage/misc/cachefunc.*
Otherwise, sage -br
would not work.
Attachments (8)
Change History (194)
comment:1 follow-ups: ↓ 2 ↓ 5 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:2 in reply to: ↑ 1 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
So, in a nutshell, it simply works (and I already have a patch that only remains to be documented).
... and documentation is hard, in particular for building the reference manual. See #9976.
The idea is:
- Modify
doc/common/builder.py
so that it uses the utilities fromsage.misc.sageinspect
rather than the utilities from theinspect
module, and modify the utilities fromsage.misc.sageinspect
so that they work on classes and methods (currently, they only work on class instances). That's #9976. - Use Cython for cached functions and methods -- it relies on #9976, since otherwise the doc won't build correctly.
I guess I will be able to submit patches to both tickets tomorrow.
comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to needs_review
It took a bit longer than I originally expected, but I think it was worth it.
New Features
- An instance of a class deriving from Parent or Element can inherit a cached_method from its category, without breaking the cache, even if it does not allow attribute assignment.
- The cached_method decorator can, to some extent, be used in Cython code.
- Cached_method is a lot faster now. In fact, using the cached_method decorator on a Python class is faster than a hand-written cache for a Python method, provided that the arguments are given by name and not by position.
Examples
Python
The following code defines a category, and a Parent class that has a method with a hand-written cache and a corresponding cached method inherited from the category:
from sage.all import cached_method, Category, Objects, Parent class MyCategory(Category): def super_categories(self): return [Objects()] class ParentMethods: @cached_method def cached_by_category(self, x=100, y=-1): return x*y class MyPythonClass(Parent): def __init__(self): self._cache = {} Parent.__init__(self, category=MyCategory()) def cached_by_python(self, x=100, y=-1): try: return self._cache[x,y] except KeyError: out = self._cache[x,y] = x*y return out
We do some sanity tests, and then show that the cached method is faster than the hand-written cache, unless we provide arguments by name:
sage: O = MyPythonClass() sage: O.cached_by_category() is O.cached_by_category(100) is O.cached_by_category(x=100) is O.cached_by_category(100,-1) True sage: O.cached_by_python(y=1) == O.cached_by_category(y=1) True sage: O.cached_by_python() == O.cached_by_category() True sage: O.cached_by_python() is O.cached_by_python(100) is O.cached_by_python(x=100) is O.cached_by_python(100,-1) True
Here are timings for the hand-knitted cache:
sage: timeit("O.cached_by_python()", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 630 ns per loop sage: timeit("O.cached_by_python(100)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 970 ns per loop sage: timeit("O.cached_by_python(y=-1)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.1 Âµs per loop sage: timeit("O.cached_by_python(100,-1)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.31 Âµs per loop
and here are the corresponding timings for the cached method inherited from the category:
sage: timeit("O.cached_by_category()", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 314 ns per loop sage: timeit("O.cached_by_category(100)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 954 ns per loop sage: timeit("O.cached_by_category(y=-1)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.93 Âµs per loop sage: timeit("O.cached_by_category(100,-1)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.06 Âµs per loop
Cython
You can not use arbitrary decorators in Cython. But it is now possible to wrap a Cython function by the cached_method and assign it as a method - one needs to explicitly provide its name, though. In addition, we provide a hand-written cache programmed in Cython.
from sage.structure.parent cimport Parent from sage.all import cached_method cpdef test_func(self,x=100, y=-1): return x*y cdef class MyCythonClass(Parent): cdef dict _cache def __init__(self, category): self._cache={} Parent.__init__(self,category=category) cached_by_decorator = cached_method(test_func, name="cached_by_decorator") cpdef cached_by_cython(self,x=100,y=-1): try: return self._cache[x,y] except KeyError: out = self._cache[x,y] = x*y return out
It is a Parent class, and thus it can inherit parent methods from a category. Without the patch, the cache of an inherited cached_method would break, but now it is fine:
sage: C = MyCythonClass(MyCategory()) sage: C.cached_by_category(y=-1) is C.cached_by_category(100,-1) True sage: C.cached_by_decorator(y=-1) is C.cached_by_decorator(100,-1) True sage: C.cached_by_decorator(y=-1) == C.cached_by_category(100,-1) True
The trick is that I introduced an attribute __cached_methods
for Parent and Element, in which a cached method can be stored. The cache is (since #8611) stored as an attribute of the bound cached method.
While it is nice that cached_method works at all in Cython, the performance is not as good as I wish. Here are the times for the hand-knitted cache written in Cython:
sage: timeit("C.cached_by_cython()", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 242 ns per loop sage: timeit("C.cached_by_cython(100)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 538 ns per loop sage: timeit("C.cached_by_cython(y=-1)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 750 ns per loop sage: timeit("C.cached_by_cython(100,-1)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 882 ns per loop
Here for the cached_method inherited from the category:
sage: timeit("C.cached_by_category()", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 754 ns per loop sage: timeit("C.cached_by_category(100)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.62 Âµs per loop sage: timeit("C.cached_by_category(y=-1)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 2.77 Âµs per loop sage: timeit("C.cached_by_category(100,-1)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.76 Âµs per loop
And here using the decorator in Cython code:
sage: timeit("C.cached_by_decorator()", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 421 ns per loop sage: timeit("C.cached_by_decorator(100)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.02 Âµs per loop sage: timeit("C.cached_by_decorator(y=-1)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.96 Âµs per loop sage: timeit("C.cached_by_decorator(100,-1)", number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.07 Âµs per loop
Conclusion
The patch provides a considerable speed-up in a case where cached_method used before, so that cached_method is not only convenient but efficient. Also, it enables to use cached_method in a broader context; here, it is not particularly efficient, but it is convenient.
We want that decorated (in particular, cached) methods appear nicely in introspection and in the reference manual. Therefore, I like to have:
Depends on #9976
comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Summary changed from Allow for extension classes to inherit cached methods from their category to Rewrite cached_method in Cython
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 1 ; follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
I tried to extend that approach to
SageObject
(from which both Parent and Element inherit), but providingSageObject
with cdef attributes will not work, since in some places there is a double inheritance, e.g., fromSageObject
andlist
.
What exactly is the problem with double inheritance? It would be nice if all SageObjects
had a fast uniform cache...
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to novoselt:
... What exactly is the problem with double inheritance? It would be nice if all
SageObjects
had a fast uniform cache...
The problem is that you can not have double inheritance from extension classes if Python does not know whether the underlying data structures are compatible. So, if you have
cdef class SageObject: pass
(which is currently the case) then it is fine, such as here:
sage: cython('cdef class MySimpleObject: pass') sage: class C(list,MySimpleObject): pass ....:
But you get an error if you want to put more structure in it
sage: cython('''cdef class MyObject: ....: cdef dict __cached_methods ....: ''') sage: class C(list,MyObject): pass ....: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TypeError Traceback (most recent call last) /mnt/local/king/SAGE/broken/devel/sage-main/<ipython console> in <module>() TypeError: Error when calling the metaclass bases multiple bases have instance lay-out conflict
comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by
Here is another data point:
sage: class MyClass: ....: def __init__(self, v): ....: self.__v = v ....: def v(self): ....: return self.__v ....: @cached_method ....: def cached_v(self): ....: return self.__v ....: def derived_from_underscore(self): ....: x = self.__v^2 ....: def derived_from_cache(self): ....: x = self.cached_v()^2 ....: sage: O = MyClass(100) sage: O.v() 100 sage: O.cached_v() 100 sage: timeit('O.v()') 625 loops, best of 3: 599 ns per loop sage: timeit('O.cached_v()') 625 loops, best of 3: 425 ns per loop
There are methods that are frequently called and just return a double-underscore attribute. It would be faster to achieve the same with a cached method! I guess this is because of the name mangling that takes place for double-underscore attributes.
However, that only holds when calling a method. Inside of a method, the double-underscore seems to be quicker:
sage: timeit('O.derived_from_underscore()') 625 loops, best of 3: 1.65 µs per loop sage: timeit('O.derived_from_cache()') 625 loops, best of 3: 1.98 µs per loop
I think it would be worth trying to use this trick: Little methods returning a double-underscore attribute appear all over the place. See #9138 for one example.
comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
There is one problem: The startup time increases.
I suspect this is because I extended the __getattr__
methods of parents and elements, so that it became slower -- slightly, I thought, but apparently noticeable. The original reason for doing so was an attempt to make a cached method available by attribute access, rather than by means of the __get__
methods of the CachedMethod
class. I have to think of something better.
comment:9 Changed 6 years ago by
I did some tests. I reverted the __getattr__
methods, so that the only change was that CachedMethod
was not a Python but a Cython class. But I still saw an increased startup time.
That is strange. Is it the case that loading a Cython class takes longer than loading a Python class.
comment:10 Changed 6 years ago by
One more idea: Currently, a cached method will modify its own __doc__
attribute, and some care is taken that it gets the correct one. Is it really needed to store the documentation? After all, it can easily be retrieved from the wrapped function or method!
Certainly it does not happen very frequently that the documentation of a method (cached or not) is requested: It is when the documentation is built, and it is when the user wants to learn something.
So, computing and storing the documentation during initialisation of a cached method may be a waste of time and also a waste of memory. Instead, I suggest that the documentation is only computed in the method self._sage_doc_()
. I am now testing if that helps, startuptimewise.
comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
I think the problem with the startup time is solved. Indeed, it turned out that the time was wasted by creating doc strings for cached methods.
Next, I'll do some more tests. If it can be confirmed that a Python method returning a double-underscore attribute is slower than a cached_method that does the same, then I will try to speed Sage up in general, by using cached methods extensively. I wonder what will come out...
Still:
Depends on #9976
comment:12 Changed 6 years ago by
In order to be on the safe side, I made some timings for the patches from #9138 (on top of #9944), and I'd like to repeat these timings here, with this patch applied additionally.
$ ./sage -startuptime ... == Slowest (including children) == 1.244 sage.all (None) 0.280 sage.schemes.all (sage.all) 0.243 sage.misc.all (sage.all) 0.162 elliptic_curves.all (sage.schemes.all) ...
So, there is no slow-down, compared with the timings from an unpatched Sage on the same machine, as reported on #9138.
Here is an arithmetical example:
sage: B.<t> = PolynomialRing(Integers(125)) sage: R = monsky_washnitzer.SpecialCubicQuotientRing(t^3 - t + B(1/4)) sage: x, T = R.gens() sage: timeit('x*T') 625 loops, best of 3: 893 µs per loop
That is about the same as with the patches from #9944 and #9138, but slower than with an unpatched Sage.
I found that one can use the improved cached_methods to considerably speed up the arithmetics. Namely, in the multiplication, the method modulus()
from sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring is called repeatedly. The modulus()
method returns ´self.basering().characteristic()`. When I put that method under a cached_method decorator, the timing looks much better:
sage: B.<t> = PolynomialRing(Integers(125)) sage: R = monsky_washnitzer.SpecialCubicQuotientRing(t^3 - t + B(1/4)) sage: x, T = R.gens() sage: timeit('x*T') 625 loops, best of 3: 253 µs per loop
That is much faster than without patches, which is 501 µs!!.
Currently, I try to find some places where using a cached_method might be beneficial. As I have demonstrated in previous posts, there are chances to speed methods up that do nothing more but "return self.__some_argument
".
But independent of that possible second patch, I think the first patch can be reviewed.
comment:13 follow-up: ↓ 16 Changed 6 years ago by
I improved the performance of accessing the cache even further.
It is quite common to have methods that do not take arguments but whose return value should be cached. Typical example is the set of generators of a multivariate polynomial ring. Since sage-4.7.alpha5, it is a cached method.
Obviously, if a method takes no arguments, then caching the single value is much easier than storing the results in a dictionary for different arguments. I implemented this special case in a class CachedMethodCallerNoArgs
. It is automatically used if @cached_method
is a applied to a method without arguments. In particular, one does not need to do changes in the code.
Here is the performance. Bot I.groebner_basis
and I.gens
are cached methods (you need to take sage-4.7.alpha5 for the example):
sage: P.<a,b,c,d> = QQ[] sage: I = P*[a,b] sage: I.gens() [a, b] sage: I.groebner_basis() [a, b] sage: type(I.gens) <type 'sage.misc.cachefunc.CachedMethodCallerNoArgs'> sage: type(I.groebner_basis) <type 'sage.misc.cachefunc.CachedMethodCaller'> sage: timeit('I.gens()',number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 170 ns per loop sage: timeit('I.groebner_basis()',number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 250 ns per loop
That is much faster than with an unpatched sage-4.7.alpha5:
sage: P.<a,b,c,d> = QQ[] sage: I = P*[a,b] sage: I.groebner_basis() [a, b] sage: I.gens() [a, b] sage: timeit('I.gens()',number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 699 ns per loop sage: timeit('I.groebner_basis()',number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 746 ns per loop
To give you an idea of how fast 170 ns or 250 ns are:
sage: class MyClass: ....: def __init__(self): ....: self._v = 10 ....: self.__v = 10 ....: def m0(self): ....: return 10 ....: def m1(self): ....: return self._v ....: def m2(self): ....: return self.__v ....: sage: O = MyClass() sage: timeit('O.m0()') 625 loops, best of 3: 1.01 µs per loop sage: timeit('O.m1()') 625 loops, best of 3: 622 ns per loop sage: timeit('O.m2()') 625 loops, best of 3: 621 ns per loop
Note that the cache is pickled -- see examples in the doc strings.
There is one further extension. There is a class sage.misc.cachefunc.ClearCacheOnPickle
, whose purpose is quite nice: If you have a class that inherits from clearCacheOnPickle
then the cached values will not be pickled.
That is to say: Let X be an instance of ClearCacheOnPickle? and assume that its pickling is implemented using the __get_newargs__
and __get_state__
mantra. Then, the cache of any cached method of loads(dumps(X))
will be empty (but of course the cache of X is preserved).
The idea existed, but it did not work for me. So, I re-implemented it essentially from scratch, using the original ideas. Also, I provided doc tests for ClearCacheOnPickle
; there had been none before.
On top of sage-4.7.alpha5, I have the patches from #10296, #9944, #9138 and #9976, and then all doc tests pass with the patch from here. But there should only be one dependency, namely of #9976, which provides introspection to interactive Cython code.
Depends on #9976
comment:14 Changed 6 years ago by
I just updated the patch, because I noticed the following: If you have an old pickle of an object with a cached method then of course the pickle will contain the cached value. If you unpickle then it may be that an old CachedMethodCaller
becomes a new CachedMethodCallerNoArgs
.
It would thus be nice if CachedMethodCallerNoArgs
could retrieve the cache value of an old pickled CachedMethodCaller
. This is implemented in the new patch.
What I did to test it:
- Without the patch applied, do
sage: P.<a,b,c,d> = QQ[] sage: I = P*[a,b] sage: I.gens() # this is in order to fill the cache - it is a CachedMethodCaller sage: save(I,'pickletest')
- With the patch applied, do
sage: I = load('pickletest') sage: I.gens.cache # this is now a CachedMethodCallerNoArgs [a, b]
So, the cache is already filled after unpickling.
comment:15 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to Wait for #9138
comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 13 ; follow-ups: ↓ 17 ↓ 18 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Obviously, if a method takes no arguments, then caching the single value is much easier than storing the results in a dictionary for different arguments. I implemented this special case in a class
CachedMethodCallerNoArgs
. It is automatically used if@cached_method
is a applied to a method without arguments. In particular, one does not need to do changes in the code.
Yeah! I have been dreaming of this performance improvement since 2008!
Altogether, my only reluctance on this patch is about the addition of an attribute to all Sage elements. This sounds like a non trivial increase of the memory footprint for small objects like finite field elements. I don't have an opinion about this myself, but this definitely requires a discussion on sage-devel.
Parents are big objects, so this is not an issue for those.
Simon: you are doing way too much good stuff for me to follow! Honestly, I feel a bit lost about where to start. Do you mind making a prioritized list of patches that need review, say on the category roadmap [1]?
Thanks!
Cheers,
Nicolas
[1] http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki/CategoriesRoadMap
comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 16 ; follow-up: ↓ 19 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to nthiery:
Replying to SimonKing: Altogether, my only reluctance on this patch is about the addition of an attribute to all Sage elements.
I did that for symmetry: Parents and Elements both accept cached methods. Cached methods only work for an object O if it either accepts attribute assignment, or provides a special location that is inspected by __getattr__
. Otherwise, you need to reconstruct the CachedMethodCaller
over and over again, which is a waste of time and also means that, e.g., "R.zero_ideal" would always be a different instance. Thus, "R.zero_ideal.cache" (which then also can not be stored as an attribute of R) is always different as well: The cache would break.
But of course, we could argue that cached methods are not of central importance for elements. So, we may decide to restrict support of cached methods to those elements that allow for attribute assignment. Then, we could remove the new __cached_methods
attribute from sage.structure.element.Element. I could live with that restricted use of cached methods for elements.
This sounds like a non trivial increase of the memory footprint for small objects like finite field elements.
If no cached methods are used (more precisely: if they are not called), then __cached_methods
should just be None (i.e., nothing more but a pointer, if I understand correctly). So, that's one word per object. If you do call cached methods then of course you need to store them somewhere.
Simon: you are doing way too much good stuff for me to follow! Honestly, I feel a bit lost about where to start. Do you mind making a prioritized list of patches that need review, say on the category roadmap [1]?
My main aim is the letterplace wrapper #7797.
It needs support for ideals in non-commutative rings. That is #11068.
Since there are rings that do not inherit from sage.rings.ring.Ring, we need to move (or duplicate?) methods from there in sage.categories.rings.Rings.ParentMethods?. That includes cached methods -- but there are rings that do not allow attribute assignment. This is why I originally opened this patch, #11115 (in the beginning, it was not so much about performance).
In order to have cached methods (in particular the argspec) appear nicely in the documentation, we need #9976, which already has a positive review.
Moving stuff from sage.rings.ring.Ring to sage.categories.rings.Rings.ParentMethods? instead of duplicating can only work if all rings use the category framework. That's the purpose of #9138, with a small part already done in #9944.
So, my personal roadmap is simply:
#9944 #9976 #9138 #11115 #11068 #7797
After that, I can finally start with my main project: Compute Ext algebras for finite dimensional path algebra quotients.
comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 16 ; follow-up: ↓ 20 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to nthiery:
[1] http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki/CategoriesRoadMap
I inserted my favourite tickets into the section "Later patches related with or using categories:" (renaming that section, since not all of them use categories, but all of them relate with the category framework).
The tickets depend on each other, thus, the priorities are implicit.
comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 17 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to nthiery:
Replying to SimonKing: Altogether, my only reluctance on this patch is about the addition of an attribute to all Sage elements.
I did that for symmetry: ...
Yes, I definitely see the motivations and benefits! I am just saying that adding one word to all elements is not a light decision that we can take unilaterally.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 18 ; follow-up: ↓ 21 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to nthiery:
[1] http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki/CategoriesRoadMap
I inserted my favourite tickets into the section "Later patches related with or using categories:" (renaming that section, since not all of them use categories, but all of them relate with the category framework).
The tickets depend on each other, thus, the priorities are implicit.
Thanks! By the way, did you include there all the patches about morphisms?
After that, I can finally start with my main project: Compute Ext algebras for finite dimensional path algebra quotients.
:-)
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:21 in reply to: ↑ 20 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to nthiery:
Thanks! By the way, did you include there all the patches about morphisms?
I completely forgot about them, and probably I would not be able to work of them in the near future (1 month or so).
comment:22 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_info
- Work issues Wait for #9138 deleted
comment:23 Changed 6 years ago by
Unfortunately, there was no reaction from sage-devel, and my question has already disappeared from the first screen.
I see an alternative to a new attribute __cached_methods
for all elements: Since that attribute will only be used if the element does not allow attribute assignment, and since only few element classes use cached methods, it might be a good compromise to introduce the __cached_methods
attribute only in those derived classes that really need it.
Hence, you would write
cdef class MyElementClass(Element): cdef public dict __cached_methods cdef ... def __init__(...)
if MyElementClass
does not accept attribute assignment but is supposed to inherit cached methods from the category framework.
I do suggest to keep the additional attribute for sage.structure.parent.Parent, though. As you said, parents are big and rare enough that an additional attribute is no real burden.
comment:24 Changed 6 years ago by
It occured to me that I did not yet provide an example to show cached methods for elements that do not allow attribute assignment:
sage: cython("""from sage.structure.element cimport Element cdef class MyElement(Element): cdef object x def __init__(self,P,x): self.x=x Element.__init__(self,P) def __neg__(self): return MyElement(self.parent(),-self.x) def _repr_(self): return '<%s>'%self.x def raw_test(self): return -self """) sage: class MyCategory(Category): @cached_method def super_categories(self): return [Objects()] class ElementMethods: @cached_method def test_cache(self): return -self sage: class MyParent(Parent): pass sage: C = MyCategory() sage: P = MyParent(category=C) sage: e = MyElement(P,5) sage: e <5> sage: -e <-5> # This is inherited from the category, ... sage: e.test_cache() <-5> # ... and the cache works, ... sage: e.test_cache() is e.test_cache() True # ... even though you can't set attributes: sage: e.bla = 1 Traceback (most recent call last): ... AttributeError: '_mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_25602_tmp_1_spyx_0.MyElement' object has no attribute 'bla' # By lack of "setattr", the cache is not as fast as it could be, ... sage: timeit('e.test_cache()') 625 loops, best of 3: 1.62 Âµs per loop # ... but it is faster than to create a new element sage: timeit('e.raw_test()') 625 loops, best of 3: 1.78 Âµs per loop
At sage-devel, Martin Raum suggested to time element creation (if I understood his suggestion correctly).
I found without patch:
sage: K = GF(101) sage: get_memory_usage() 839.96484375 sage: %time for i in xrange(10^7): a = K(i) CPU times: user 25.19 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 25.21 s Wall time: 25.20 s sage: get_memory_usage() 839.96484375
and with patch
sage: K = GF(101) sage: get_memory_usage() 841.96875 # show that the new attribute is there, but it is non-initialized sage: a=K(4) sage: print a.__cached_methods None sage: %time for i in xrange(10^7): a = K(i) CPU times: user 24.46 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 24.46 s Wall time: 24.46 s sage: get_memory_usage() 841.96875
So the time actually improved with the patch, and the memory usage at starting sage increased by as much as 0.24% - I hope that can be afforded.
comment:25 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
There was rather little feedback on sage-devel.
The example above shows that the increase of memory consumption - at least directly after starting sage - is certainly tolerable. The performance gain is obvious.
There remains the question what we shall do with elements versus element class of a category. Options:
1) Do what the patch suggest. Then, every instance of Element can inherit a cached method from the element class of a category, regardless whether it accepts attribute assignment or not. The cached method will be more efficient if you can assign attributes, but at least the cache won't break.
2) Do not support the inheritance of cached methods from the category to elements that don't support attribute assignment.
3) A combination of 1) and 2): If the user defines an attribute
__cached_methods
for its element, then it could inherit cached methods from the element class of a category.
I already stated what I'd prefer.
By the way, I just noticed that elements can currently (with or without the patch) not inherit a cached_in_parent_method. Reason:
sage: class MyCategory(Category): ....: def super_categories(self): ....: return [Objects()] ....: class ElementMethods: ....: @cached_in_parent_method ....: def test_cache(self): ....: return -self ....: sage: C = MyCategory() sage: C.element_class.test_cache Traceback (most recent call last): ... AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'parent'
I think I could make it work. Should I do that here, or better on a different ticket (which depends on this)?
comment:26 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
It turned out that the change is very small. So, I'll add a doc test and then submit a new patch here.
comment:27 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
The new patch is posted. Apart from fixing the categorical trouble with cached_in_parent methods, it turns several doc strings into raw strings (they contain backslashes). Please look at the documentation (I'll build it as well)!
Here is the new doc test, demonstrating that cached_in_parent works with categories:
sage: cython_code = ["from sage.structure.parent cimport Parent", ... "from sage.structure.element cimport Element", ... "from sage.all import Category, cached_in_parent_method", ... "cdef class MyElement(Element):", ... " cdef object x", ... " def __init__(self,P,x):", ... " self.x=x", ... " Element.__init__(self,P)", ... " def _repr_(self):", ... " return '<%s>'%self.x", ... " def __neg__(self):", ... " return MyElement(self.parent(),-self.x)", ... " def __hash__(self):", ... " return hash(self.x)", ... " def __cmp__(self, other):", ... " return cmp(self.x, (<MyElement>other).x)", ... "cdef class MyParent(Parent): pass", ... "class MyCategory(Category):", ... " def super_categories(self):", ... " return [Objects()]", ... " class ElementMethods:", ... " @cached_in_parent_method", ... " def test_cache(self):", ... " return -self"] sage: cython('\n'.join(cython_code)) sage: C = MyCategory() sage: P = MyParent(category=C) sage: e1 = MyElement(P,5) sage: e2 = MyElement(P,5) sage: e3 = MyElement(P,6)
We verify that attribute assignment does not work:
sage: e1.bla = 1 Traceback (most recent call last): ... AttributeError: '...MyElement' object has no attribute 'bla' sage: P.bla = 1 Traceback (most recent call last): ... AttributeError: '...MyParent' object has no attribute 'bla'
Nevertheless, the cached method works, and it returns identical output for equal elements, as expected:
sage: e1.test_cache() <-5> sage: e1 is e2 False sage: e1 == e2 True sage: e2.test_cache() is e1.test_cache() True sage: e1 == e3 False sage: e2.test_cache() == e3.test_cache() False
Back to the discussion about attributes: It is due to the __cached_methods
attribute of P
that the cache does not break in the example. It is not needed that the elements have that attribute.
Depends on #9976
comment:28 follow-up: ↓ 29 Changed 6 years ago by
I think that the current behaviour of the patch regarding cache storage is just fine. Getting more memory tends to be much easier and cheaper than getting a faster CPU.
I was avoiding using @cached_method
before due to its issues with speed and documentation, but have started using it recently and it is so convenient! The more general, convenient, and well-behaved these decorators are, the more developers will adapt them.
While in principle it is not too much of a hassle to insert an extra attribute into your new class, it is quite annoying to always remember that if you decide to put a decorator on some method you have also to check if there is that extra attribute already defined or not. And as I understand, things don't break if you forget to do it, they just work slower than they should.
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 28 ; follow-up: ↓ 32 Changed 6 years ago by
Hi Andrey,
Replying to novoselt:
And as I understand, things don't break if you forget to do it, they just work slower than they should.
What scenario does your statement refer to? (1) The status quo, (2) the patch as it is, or (3) the patch without sage.structure.element.Element.__cached_methods
?
Here is my view on these three:
(1) Cached methods have been improved in #8611, but they are still not fast enough, for my taste. Time and memory is wasted by assigning a __doc__
string to each instance of a cached method (that is noticeable in the startup time). It can only be used in Python code. If a parent or an element does not accept attribute assignment then it can inherit a cached_method from the category -- but the cache breaks and there is a huge overhead. cached_in_parent_method can not be inherited from the category at all.
(2) cached_method can compete with a hand-written cache in Python, speed-wise, provided that attribute assignment is possible. __doc__
is now replaced by _sage_doc_
, which is used by sage's introspection anyway and computes the docstring only when requested. It can, to some extent, be used in Cython code. If a parent or an element does not accept attribute assignment then it can inherit a cached_method from the category: The return values are cached ("things don't break), but there is an overhead (though much less than in (1)). The price to pay is 0.24% more memory consumption at startup. cached_in_parent_method can be inherited from the category.
(3) (Hypothetical) Cached methods are supported for elements only if either the element allows attribute assignment, or the user did not forget to provide it with a public attribute __cached_methods
. If neither of these conditions hold then things behave as in (1), for elements. In particular, for an element that does not satisfy the conditions, the cache of cached_method will break and will have a huge overhead. However, cached_in_parent_method is fully supported (that is since the cache is in the parent, and parents have __cached_methods
in scenario (3)).
comment:30 Changed 6 years ago by
PS: Here is another test.
With sage-4.7.alpha5 and no patches applied:
sage: get_memory_usage() 839.96484375 sage: K = GF(next_prime(10^6)) sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^6)] CPU times: user 4.00 s, sys: 0.06 s, total: 4.05 s Wall time: 4.06 s sage: get_memory_usage() 929.83203125 sage: 929.83203125 - 839.96484375 89.8671875000000
With sage-4.7.alpha5 and the patches applied:
sage: get_memory_usage() 841.9921875 sage: K = GF(next_prime(10^6)) sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^6)] CPU times: user 4.25 s, sys: 0.03 s, total: 4.28 s Wall time: 4.28 s sage: get_memory_usage() 938.6953125 sage: 938.6953125 - 841.9921875 96.7031250000000
I don't know why it became slower - as I mentioned above, the element creation in GF(101)
became faster. However, when many elements are created then the memory consumption increases by something like 7.5%:
sage: (96.7031250000000-89.8671875000000)/89.8671875000000 0.0760671129270625
That may be too much.
comment:31 follow-up: ↓ 33 Changed 6 years ago by
Apparently the different tendency of the test comes from choosing a different field size. If I return to GF(101)
, I get
sage-4.7.alpha5 without patches:
sage: get_memory_usage() 839.96484375 sage: K = GF(101) sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^6)] CPU times: user 2.75 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 2.76 s Wall time: 2.76 s sage: get_memory_usage() 849.00390625 sage: 849.00390625-839.96484375 9.03906250000000
With the patches:
sage: get_memory_usage() 841.9921875 sage: K = GF(101) sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^6)] CPU times: user 2.66 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 2.66 s Wall time: 2.66 s sage: get_memory_usage() 851.03125 sage: 851.03125-841.9921875 9.03906250000000
So, the memory consumption in that scenario does not increase at all, and there is a little speedup.
I wonder why that is different with GF(next_prime(10^6))
?
comment:32 in reply to: ↑ 29 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Hi Andrey,
Replying to novoselt:
And as I understand, things don't break if you forget to do it, they just work slower than they should.
What scenario does your statement refer to? (1) The status quo, (2) the patch as it is, or (3) the patch without
sage.structure.element.Element.__cached_methods
?
Hi Simon, I was referring to (3) here, although I probably phrased it ambiguously. By "don't break" I meant that, as I understand, Sage will work and produce correct results if a user forgets to add a special caching attribute. But the cache will break and the speed will be lower. So I think that (2) is a better option.
comment:33 in reply to: ↑ 31 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
I wonder why that is different with
GF(next_prime(10^6))
?
If I am not mistaken, creation of elements for "small" and "big" fields is somewhat different, something like all elements are created and stored somewhere for small fields, but for big ones they are created one-by-one.
Personally, I think that even 10% is fine in memory increase if it leads to an efficient and uniform caching...
comment:34 Changed 6 years ago by
Responding to http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/0aa5aca883603f64
Most machines have a limited resource (CPU cache) which means that in general, one expects that applications with a smaller memory footprint should have a tendency to run a bit faster. Given that I would have a slight preference towards option (3), i.e., keep elements small.
These things are notoriously difficult to quantify and are very processor dependent - good implementations of linear algebra libraries have to be tuned to be cache-friendly on each architecture.
The general principle is the following: General memory access is relatively slow, so CPUs have a cache (nowadays several levels) of fast memory so that repeated access to the same memory locations doesn't have to go all the way to main memory and can be done faster.
This works because memory usage tends to be temporally and spatially local. (temporal: the same memory locations tend to be accessed frequently before moving on; spatial: programs tend to access memory locations that are close together).
Making elements bigger will reduce both: If a CPU has enough cache to store N words and an element occupies s words, then a program will run quickly if its inner loop refers to at most N/s elements. As soon as it refers to more, the cache starts thrashing and you'll notice a poorer performance. As you see, small s is better. Your proposal would change s to s+1 ...
The spatial component comes in because caching rarely happens with a resolution of single words (because the overhead of storing which memory locations are cached). That's why it's good to have related data stored in consecutive memory. Increasing s also reduces that ... (apart from the fact that Python does not give us control over location of allocation anyway, but we can hope Python does this sanely).
Again, this is notoriously hard to quantify, but if you fix the problem and the architecture one can usually recognise drops in performance as data size increases, due to the different levels of cache starting to thrash. So, in general, small elements are better, both for memory use and for performance.
comment:35 follow-up: ↓ 36 Changed 6 years ago by
Just to make sure that the CPU cache effect is real, I tried a little example
%cython cpdef test(int nelts,int spacing,int repetitions): cdef int i,j,r cdef int *L cdef int k L=<int*>malloc(sizeof(int)*nelts*spacing) for r in xrange(repetitions): k=0 for j in xrange(nelts): L[k]=L[k]+1 k += spacing free(L)
The following program times incrementing memory cells 2^30
times, while varying the number of cells (nelts) and their spacing in memory (spacing).
for j in xrange(0,9): for i in xrange(1,29-j): tstart=os.times()[0] test(2**i,2**j,2**(30-i)) tstop=os.times()[0] print [i,j,30-i,tstop-tstart]
The results are striking. Execution times vary by more than a factor 20 and one can see very definite thresholds where the execution time jumps. An excerpt from the output:
[1, 0, 29, 1.8100000000000001] [2, 0, 28, 1.5999999999999996] [3, 0, 27, 1.4800000000000004] [4, 0, 26, 1.7299999999999995] [5, 0, 25, 1.5400000000000009] [6, 0, 24, 1.4599999999999991] [7, 0, 23, 1.4100000000000001] [8, 0, 22, 1.3800000000000008] [9, 0, 21, 1.3699999999999992] ... [16, 0, 14, 1.3399999999999999] [17, 0, 13, 1.3399999999999999] [18, 0, 12, 2.1700000000000017] [19, 0, 11, 2.6799999999999997] [20, 0, 10, 2.7299999999999969] [21, 0, 9, 2.740000000000002] ... [28, 0, 2, 2.8500000000000014] [9, 1, 21, 1.3599999999999994] ... [16, 1, 14, 1.3499999999999943] [17, 1, 13, 2.9500000000000028] [18, 1, 12, 5.1700000000000017] [19, 1, 11, 5.2199999999999989] [12, 2, 18, 1.3599999999999852] [13, 2, 17, 1.539999999999992] [14, 2, 16, 1.5500000000000114] [15, 2, 15, 1.539999999999992] [16, 2, 14, 4.8200000000000216] [17, 2, 13, 9.2099999999999795] [11, 3, 19, 1.3500000000000227] [12, 3, 18, 3.2199999999999704] [13, 3, 17, 3.2200000000000273] [14, 3, 16, 3.2199999999999704] [15, 3, 15, 8.7700000000000387] [16, 3, 14, 17.019999999999982] [10, 4, 20, 1.3700000000000045] [11, 4, 19, 6.1399999999999864] [12, 4, 18, 6.1400000000000432] [13, 4, 17, 6.1499999999999773] [14, 4, 16, 15.779999999999973] [15, 4, 15, 32.220000000000027] [16, 4, 14, 33.379999999999995] [17, 4, 13, 33.879999999999995] [18, 4, 12, 34.210000000000036] [19, 4, 11, 34.439999999999941] [9, 5, 21, 1.3799999999999955] [10, 5, 20, 5.1399999999999864] [11, 5, 19, 5.1599999999999682] [12, 5, 18, 5.0099999999999909] [13, 5, 17, 14.540000000000077] [14, 5, 16, 31.549999999999955] [15, 5, 15, 32.299999999999955] [7, 6, 23, 1.3999999999998636] [8, 6, 22, 1.4100000000000819] [9, 6, 21, 5.3800000000001091] [10, 6, 20, 5.3899999999998727] [11, 6, 19, 5.3900000000001] [12, 6, 18, 14.480000000000018] [13, 6, 17, 31.399999999999864] [6, 7, 24, 1.4399999999998272] [7, 7, 23, 1.4800000000000182] [8, 7, 22, 5.4300000000000637] [9, 7, 21, 5.4100000000000819] [10, 7, 20, 5.3999999999998636] [11, 7, 19, 14.960000000000036] [12, 7, 18, 31.470000000000027] [13, 7, 17, 33.029999999999973] [14, 7, 16, 33.600000000000136] [5, 8, 25, 1.5399999999999636] [6, 8, 24, 1.6100000000001273] [7, 8, 23, 6.0899999999999181] [8, 8, 22, 5.8699999999998909] [9, 8, 21, 5.7300000000000182] [10, 8, 20, 22.1700000000003] [11, 8, 19, 41.649999999999636] [12, 8, 18, 64.5300000000002] [13, 8, 17, 69.190000000000055] [14, 8, 16, 73.199999999999818] [15, 8, 15, 74.820000000000164] [16, 8, 14, 69.440000000000055] [17, 8, 13, 69.579999999999927] [18, 8, 12, 70.349999999999909] [19, 8, 11, 69.730000000000018] [20, 8, 10, 77.869999999999891]
comment:36 in reply to: ↑ 35 Changed 6 years ago by
Hi Nils,
Replying to nbruin:
Just to make sure that the CPU cache effect is real, I tried a little example
Thank you for your clear explanation! I am currently testing some variations of my patch: Both for parents and for elements, one may or may not have __cached_methods
- if one has, then it can always inherit cached methods from the category framework. And if one has the attribute, then one may or may not search it in the __getattr__
method - if one does then the speed penalty for missing attribute assignment is reduced.
I can already confirm that the timings are affected by the presence of the attribute. But I first need to finish my tests.
comment:37 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
My tests seem to indicate that (at least on my CPU) __cached_methods
for parents does not hurt, but __cached_methods
for elements can yield a slow-down. Changes in the __getattr__
methods of parents or elements did not yield a significant slow-down.
So, I think it is a good idea to have __cached_methods
for parents. It makes me wonder whether such attribute could serve an additional purpose: If the method resolution order does not find an attribute of a parent then it is searched in the category, by getattr_from_other_class
. That takes a lot of time. So, shouldn't there be a shortpath so that looking up the same attribute becomes faster the second time?
That's to say: If a parent P
inherits any attribute foo
from the category then I suggest that P.foo
should be stored in P.__cached_methods["foo"]
. __getattr__
needs to search P.__cached_methods
anyway, and a lookup in a dictionary should be faster than calling getattr_from_other_class
.
Concerning elements, it meanwhile seems better to not have __cached_methods
by default. But it should be possible that it is provided by the user, so that cached methods inherited from the category can be stored there. The __getattr__
of elements will test whether there is __cached_methods
and search there.
So far, my tests indicate that the above approach is fine, speed-wise and memory-wise. My test is:
a = get_memory_usage() K = GF(2) %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^7)] get_memory_usage() - a a = get_memory_usage() K = GF(101) %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^7)] get_memory_usage() - a a = get_memory_usage() K = GF(next_prime(10^6)) %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^7)] get_memory_usage() - a
So, it is formed by three scenarios. I first give the user CPU time and the memory consumption for sage-4.7.alpha5 plus the patches from #9976:
25.28 s, 78.49609375 25.11 s, 0.0 # so, GF(101) needs the same amount of memory than for GF(2) 88.20 s, 794.9375
Here are the same data for the current patches (i.e., with __cached_methods
for both parents and elements):
25.73 s, 78.49609375 25.11 s, 0.0 92.89 s, 864.21484375
And here are the same data for a (not yet posted) patch that implements the ideas sketched above:
25.33 s, 78.49609375 24.49 s, 0.0 87.13 s, 794.93359375
I'll first catch some sleep, then I will add documentation about the use of __cached_methods
, and of course I also need to run doctests.
comment:38 Changed 6 years ago by
I just noticed that the additional attribute for parents could actually serve a third purpose: Providing lazy attributes for parent extension classes!
Namely, lazy attributes rely on the possibility to assign attributes. At least in the case of parent classes, if attribute assignment is impossible, they could do the next best thing and store stuff in __cached_methods
!
comment:39 Changed 6 years ago by
At the moment, it seems to me that the length of doc strings of cached_in_parent_method has a considerable influence (namely almost 4%) on the computation time, in some tests that actually do not involve a cached_in_parent_method. Frustrating. Can that really be? Should that be a reason to avoid documentation???
comment:40 Changed 6 years ago by
Before I can submit a new patch, I must remove redundant tests from the documentation. It seems that if I make the documentation a little bit too long then the element creation tests become slower by 4%.
comment:41 Changed 6 years ago by
- Dependencies set to #9976
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
I have replaced the previous patches by a single patch. I am sorry in advance for the long post below.
It was indicated in previous posts that there was a certain danger of slowing down object creation. Also, one may think of startuptime. It seems to me that it is now solved.
I announced that I would like to use the new __cached_methods
attribute of parents to store attributes that are obtained by slow attribute lookup in the category framework, and to make lazy attributes work on all parents.
Here are examples. I compare sage-4.7.alpha5 plus #9976 (referred to by "without patch") with sage-4.7.alpha5 plus #9976 plus the patch from here (referred to by "with patch").
1. Startuptime With patch:
... == Slowest (including children) == 1.155 sage.all (None) 0.275 sage.schemes.all (sage.all) 0.232 sage.misc.all (sage.all) 0.158 elliptic_curves.all (sage.schemes.all) 0.155 ell_rational_field (elliptic_curves.all) ...
Without patch:
... == Slowest (including children) == 1.229 sage.all (None) 0.278 sage.schemes.all (sage.all) 0.241 sage.misc.all (sage.all) 0.161 elliptic_curves.all (sage.schemes.all) 0.159 ell_rational_field (elliptic_curves.all) ...
=> no slow down.
2. Element creation
This is with patch. I indicate the corresponding timings without patch in the comments:
sage: a = get_memory_usage() sage: K = GF(2) sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^7)] CPU times: user 25.23 s, sys: 0.02 s, total: 25.25 s Wall time: 25.26 s # without patch: 25.52 s sage: get_memory_usage() - a 78.49609375 # same as without patch sage: a = get_memory_usage() sage: K = GF(101) sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^7)] CPU times: user 25.13 s, sys: 0.03 s, total: 25.16 s Wall time: 25.16 s # without patch: 26.20 s sage: get_memory_usage() - a 0.0 sage: a = get_memory_usage() sage: K = GF(next_prime(10^6)) sage: %time L = [K(i) for i in xrange(10^7)] CPU times: user 87.40 s, sys: 0.24 s, total: 87.63 s Wall time: 87.64 s # without patch: 88.87 s sage: get_memory_usage() - a 794.94140625 # without patch: 794.94921875
=> no slow down.
3. Cached methods in Python code
Here, I consider existing code, namely gens()
and groebner_basis()
for multivariate polynomial ideals. Again, the timings are with patch, the old timings are in comments
sage: P.<x,y> = QQ[] sage: I = P*[x,y] sage: timeit('I.gens()',number=10^7) 10000000 loops, best of 3: 142 ns per loop # Without patch: # 10000000 loops, best of 3: 703 ns per loop sage: timeit('I.groebner_basis()',number=10^7) 10000000 loops, best of 3: 249 ns per loop # Without patch: # 10000000 loops, best of 3: 746 ns per loop
4. Accessing parent attributes that are inherited from the category, if the element class of the category does not appear in the method resolution order
It may happen that a parent is not an instance of the parent class of its category. That can be for two reasons: Either the category is not properly initialised (it is partially taken care of in #9944 and #9138), or it is a Cython class (if I remember correctly, they don't play well with dynamic classes). Then, attribute lookup must go beyond the usual method resolution order, and that's very slow. So, I suggest to use a shortpath in that case:
sage: P.<x,y> = QQ[] sage: P._is_category_initialized() False sage: P._init_category_(Algebras(QQ)) sage: P.sum <bound method Algebras.parent_class.sum of Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y over Rational Field> sage: P.sum.__module__ 'sage.categories.commutative_additive_monoids' sage: timeit('P.sum', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 755 ns per loop # Without patch # 1000000 loops, best of 3: 3.76 µs per loop sage: P.__cached_methods['sum'] <bound method Algebras.parent_class.sum of Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y over Rational Field>
5. Cython: Lazy attributes and cached methods inherit from the category
The following would not work at all without the patch.
We define a category (written in Cython) with some cached methods.
sage: cython_code = ["from sage.all import cached_method, cached_in_parent_method, Category", ... "class MyCategory(Category):", ... " @cached_method", ... " def super_categories(self):", ... " return [Objects()]", ... " class ElementMethods:", ... " @cached_method", ... " def element_cache_test(self):", ... " return -self", ... " @cached_in_parent_method", ... " def element_via_parent_test(self):", ... " return -self", ... " class ParentMethods:", ... " @cached_method", ... " def one(self):", ... " return self.element_class(self,1)", ... " @cached_method", ... " def invert(self, x):", ... " return -x"] sage: cython('\n'.join(cython_code))
Case 1
Define elements and parents as Python classes (but in Cython code), so that attribute assignment is possible. That's the easy case.
sage: cython_code = ["from sage.structure.element cimport Element", ... "class MyElement(Element):", ... " def __init__(self,P,x):", ... " self.x=x", ... " Element.__init__(self,P)", ... " def __neg__(self):", ... " return MyElement(self.parent(),-self.x)", ... " def _repr_(self):", ... " return '<%s>'%self.x", ... " def __hash__(self):", ... " return hash(self.x)", ... " def raw_test(self):", ... " return -self", ... "from sage.structure.parent cimport Parent", ... "class MyParent(Parent):", ... " Element = MyElement"] sage: cython('\n'.join(cython_code)) sage: C = MyCategory() sage: P = MyParent(category=C) sage: e = MyElement(P,5)
Cached method for the parent:
# Cache without arguments sage: P.one() <1> sage: P.one() is P.one() True sage: timeit('P.one()', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 210 ns per loop # Cache with arguments sage: P.invert(e) <-5> sage: P.invert(e) is P.invert(e) True sage: timeit('P.invert(e)', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 815 ns per loop
Cached methods for elements (one with cache in the element, the other with cache in the parent):
# Cache without arguments sage: e.element_cache_test() <-5> sage: e.element_cache_test() is e.element_cache_test() True sage: timeit('e.element_cache_test()', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 173 ns per loop # Cached in parent sage: e.element_via_parent_test() <-5> sage: e.element_via_parent_test() is e.element_via_parent_test() True sage: timeit('e.element_via_parent_test()', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 574 ns per loop # Comparison with element creation: sage: e.raw_test() <-5> sage: e.raw_test() is e.raw_test() False sage: timeit('e.raw_test()', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.57 µs per loop
Case 2
We use Cython classes for which attribute assignment is impossible. This is no problem at all, for the parent class. For the element class, we need to provide an additional public attribute __cached_methods
, or things partially break:
sage: cython_code = ["from sage.structure.element cimport Element", ... "cdef class MyBrokenElement(Element):", ... " cdef object x", ... " def __init__(self,P,x):", ... " self.x=x", ... " Element.__init__(self,P)", ... " def __neg__(self):", ... " return MyElement(self.parent(),-self.x)", ... " def _repr_(self):", ... " return '<%s>'%self.x", ... " def __hash__(self):", ... " return hash(self.x)", ... " def raw_test(self):", ... " return -self", ... "cdef class MyElement(Element):", ... " cdef public dict __cached_methods", ... " cdef object x", ... " def __init__(self,P,x):", ... " self.x=x", ... " Element.__init__(self,P)", ... " def __neg__(self):", ... " return MyElement(self.parent(),-self.x)", ... " def _repr_(self):", ... " return '<%s>'%self.x", ... " def __hash__(self):", ... " return hash(self.x)", ... " def raw_test(self):", ... " return -self", ... "from sage.structure.parent cimport Parent", ... "cdef class MyParent(Parent):", ... " Element = MyElement"] sage: cython('\n'.join(cython_code)) sage: C = MyCategory() sage: P = MyParent(category=C) sage: ebroken = MyBrokenElement(P,5) sage: e = MyElement(P,5)
Every parent should have a lazy attribute element_class
-- but so far, it used to fail on extension classes. That problem is solved by the patch:
sage: P.element_class <type '_mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_29604_tmp_2_spyx_0.MyElement'>
If attribute assignment is impossible then the cache (for parents) still works, but gets a bit slower. Without the patch, the cache would break, and even a working cache would be slower.
sage: P.one() <1> sage: P.one() is P.one() True sage: timeit('P.one()', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 685 ns per loop # Cache with arguments sage: P.invert(e) <-5> sage: P.invert(e) is P.invert(e) True sage: timeit('P.invert(e)', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.06 µs per loop
We now consider the broken cache for elements. It turns out that the cached method for the "broken" element class can still be called, but is not cached. However, the cached-in-parent method is cached, but is terribly slow:
sage: ebroken.element_cache_test() <-5> # This is broken: sage: ebroken.element_cache_test() is ebroken.element_cache_test() False sage: ebroken.element_via_parent_test() <-5> # This is not broken: sage: ebroken.element_via_parent_test() is ebroken.element_via_parent_test() True # But it is very very slow: sage: timeit('ebroken.element_via_parent_test()') 625 loops, best of 3: 31.2 µs per loop
However, the simple addition of a public dict __cached_methods
make the cache work nicely (even though attribute assignment is still faster):
sage: e.element_cache_test() <-5> sage: e.element_cache_test() is e.element_cache_test() True sage: timeit('e.element_cache_test()', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 921 ns per loop # Cached in parent sage: e.element_via_parent_test() <-5> sage: e.element_via_parent_test() is e.element_via_parent_test() True sage: timeit('e.element_via_parent_test()', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.13 µs per loop # Comparison with element creation sage: timeit('e.raw_test()', number=10^6) 1000000 loops, best of 3: 696 ns per loop
6. Clear cache on pickle
There was a special class ClearCacheOnPickle
in the cachfunc module. However, it was not sufficiently documented (and not provided with tests), and in fact it was broken. I made it work, and this is one is taken from the doc strings:
In the following example, we create a Python class that inherits from multivariate polynomial ideals, but does not pickle cached values. We provide the definition in Cython, however, since interactive Cython definitions provide introspection by trac ticket #9976, whereas Python definitions don't. :: sage: P.<a,b,c,d> = QQ[] sage: I = P*[a,b] sage: classdef = ['from sage.misc.cachefunc import ClearCacheOnPickle', ... 'from sage.all import QQ', ... 'P = QQ["a","b","c","d"]; I = P*[P.gen(0),P.gen(1)]', ... 'class MyClass(ClearCacheOnPickle,I.__class__):', ... ' def __init__(self,ring,gens):', ... ' I.__class__.__init__(self,ring,gens)', ... ' def __getnewargs__(self):', ... ' return (self._Ideal_generic__ring,self._Ideal_generic__gens)'] sage: cython('\n'.join(classdef)) We destroy the cache of two methods of ``I`` on purpose (demonstrating that the two different implementations of cached methods are correctly dealt with). Pickling ``I`` preserves the cache:: sage: I.gens.set_cache('bar') sage: I.groebner_basis.set_cache('foo',algorithm='singular') sage: J = loads(dumps(I)) sage: J.gens() 'bar' sage: J.groebner_basis(algorithm='singular') 'foo' However, if we have an ideal that additionally descends from :class:`ClearCacheOnPickle`, the carefully corrupted cache is not pickled:: sage: A = MyClass(P,[a,b]) sage: A Ideal (a, b) of Multivariate Polynomial Ring in a, b, c, d over Rational Field sage: A.gens.set_cache('foo') sage: A.groebner_basis.set_cache('bar',algorithm='singular') sage: A.gens() 'foo' sage: A.groebner_basis(algorithm='singular') 'bar' sage: B = loads(dumps(A)) sage: B.gens() [a, b] sage: B.groebner_basis(algorithm='singular') [a, b] sage: A.gens() 'foo'
Doctests pass for me. So, I guess it is in need of review, again!
For the patchbot:
Depends on #9976
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch
comment:42 Changed 6 years ago by
There is another introspection ticket, namely #11298, that should probably proceed this ticket. It does some changes in sage.rings.polynomial.mult_polynomial_ideal, and therefore some line numbers in the introspection tests in sage.misc.cachefunc needed to be modified.
It is taken care of by the most recent patch version.
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch
comment:43 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:44 Changed 6 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #9976 to #9976, #11298
comment:45 Changed 6 years ago by
FWIW, the long tests pass for me. I really don't know what the patchbot is complaining about.
comment:46 Changed 6 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #9976, #11298 to sage-4.7, #9976, #11298
comment:47 Changed 6 years ago by
After investing some work on #9944, I am now resuming work on cached methods.
Let's discuss elements again. The options were:
- Have
__cached_methods
as a cdef public attribute forsage.structure.element.Element
. Advantage: It allows cached methods for all elements, even if they don't accept attribute assignment. Disadvantage: A general slowdown could result if the memory footprint of an ubiquitous class increases.
- Do not have
__cached_method
for elements, but let__getattr__
test the presence of such attribute. Advantage: The footprint remains small, and cached methods can be used for classes derived from Element by simply providing them with a public attribute__cached_methods
. Disadvantage: The__getattr__
method of elements needs to look for__cached_methods
, which yields another slowdown.
I therefore suggest a third solution:
- Keep
sage.structure.element.Element
untouched (both the memory footprint and the__getattr__
method). Instead, introduce a new classsage.structure.element.ElementWithCache
: It derives fromElement
and only adds a__cached_method
attribute and a modified__getattr__
. Hence, if the user wants an element class with the possibility to inherit cached methods or lazy attributes from the category then either
i) the class must allow attribute assignment (
class MyElement(Element)
will do), or
ii) the class must be derived from
ElementWithCache
instead ofElement
(cdef class MyElement(ElementWithCache)
will do).
I am now trying to implement the third approach. It seems to me that it combines the advantages of the previous two approaches and avoids their disadvantages.
comment:48 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to Cacheable subclass of Element; radical application of cached_methods
I am now preparing a new patch that will implement my suggestion from the previous comment. Moreover, I'll radically apply cached methods.
That means the following: I will go through all Python files in sage/rings/ and sage/algebras/ defining parent structures, and I will use @cached_method on any method that has only self
as an argument and will not be modified by side-effects of other methods. Any.
The reason for that project is the fact that even a simple-most possible method, such as
def is_exact(self): return True
takes about 690 ns on my machine, and
def prec(self): return self._prec
even takes about 2.1 µs.
The cached versions are much faster,
@cached_method def is_exact(self): return True @cached_method def prec(self): return self._prec
only takes about 375 ns on the same machine, with my patch.
Thus I expect to obtain a general speedup of arithmetics. The question is whether there will be a noticeable increase of memory consumption.
comment:49 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
- Work issues Cacheable subclass of Element; radical application of cached_methods deleted
I updated trac11115-cached_cython.patch: There were some doctests whose result depends on line numbers in other files. Those will break as soon as the other file will be edited. That would be a pain in the neck. I therefore removed one test that only returned the line number, and in another test I replaced the line number by "...".
And I posted a new patch trac11115-ElementWithCache.patch. With it, there will be no general support for cached methods for elements. That's to say, cached methods can be inherited from the category only if the element supports attribute assignment.
For users who really want an element class that does not allow attribute assignment but absolutely has to inherit cached methods or lazy attributes from the category, I added a class sage.structure.element.ElementWithCachedMethod
. I doubt that it will be frequently used, but at least it is there.
I guess adding @cached_method on front of any small method of rings and algebras shall be on a different ticket.
Back to "needs review"!
comment:50 Changed 6 years ago by
I forgot to inform the patchbot:
Depends on sage-4.7, #9976, #11298
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115-ElementWithCache?.patch
comment:51 Changed 6 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from sage-4.7, #9976, #11298 to sage-4.7, #9976, #11298, 11342
- Description modified (diff)
I am currently working on different tickets. One of them, namely #11342, changes the getattr method of parents and elements. Since #11342 is more basic than this ticket, it should be applied first. Hence, I introduced it as a new dependency and updated both patches accordingly.
At least for me, all doc tests pass.
Depends on #9976, #11298, #11342
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115-ElementWithCache?.patch
comment:52 Changed 6 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from sage-4.7, #9976, #11298, 11342 to sage-4.7, #9976, #11298, #11342
comment:53 Changed 6 years ago by
I had to rebase the first patch because of a change in #11298.
Changed 6 years ago by
Support cached methods for elements only if attributes can be assigned. Provide a subclass of Element that does fully support cached methods and lazy attributes
comment:54 Changed 6 years ago by
I have just updated the second patch, because I had some misprints in the documentation of the new class sage.structure.element.ElementWithCachedMethod
.
comment:55 follow-up: ↓ 56 Changed 6 years ago by
trac11115-cached_cython.patch
applies with fuzz 2 but seems ok. Please rediff anyways ;-)
comment:56 in reply to: ↑ 55 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
trac11115-cached_cython.patch
applies with fuzz 2
Really? I am now using sage-4.7.2.alpha2, and both patches (of course applied after the two patches from #11342) match fine:
king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage$ hg qapplied trac11342-attribute_error_message.rebased.patch trac_11342_fix_pari_initialization.patch king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage$ hg qimport http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/raw-attachment/ticket/11115/trac11115-cached_cython.patch Füge trac11115-cached_cython.patch zur Seriendatei hinzu king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage$ hg qpush Wende trac11115-cached_cython.patch an jetzt bei: trac11115-cached_cython.patch king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage$ hg qimport http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/raw-attachment/ticket/11115/trac11115-ElementWithCache.patch Füge trac11115-ElementWithCache.patch zur Seriendatei hinzu king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage$ hg qpush Wende trac11115-ElementWithCache.patch an jetzt bei: trac11115-ElementWithCache.patch
comment:57 follow-up: ↓ 58 Changed 6 years ago by
I just noticed that the fuzz is because I applied your trac9138-categories_for_rings.patch
first. I guess we don't consider that as a prerequisite for this ticket or for #11342 any more.
comment:58 in reply to: ↑ 57 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:59 Changed 6 years ago by
With sage-4.7.2.alpha2 plus #11342 and this ticket, I get a rather strange doctest error:
sage -t -long "devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx" ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx", line 7722: sage: M.round(10) Expected: [-2.4494897428 0.0 0.0] [-3.6742346142 0.7071067812 0.0] [-4.8989794856 1.4142135624 0.0] Got: [-2.4494897428 0.0 0.0] [-3.6742346142 0.7071067812 0.0] [-4.8989794856 1.4142135624 -0.0] ********************************************************************** 1 items had failures: 1 of 68 in __main__.example_97 ***Test Failed*** 1 failures. For whitespace errors, see the file /mnt/local/king/.sage/tmp/.doctest_matrix2.py [22.4 s]
Hence, 0.0 becomes -0.0.
Worse is another error:
sage -t -long "devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix_double_dense.pyx" ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix_ double_dense.pyx", line 968: sage: sv[2:3] Expected: [2.92724029018e-16] Got: [2.01161346159e-16] ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix_double_dense.pyx", line 1032: sage: sv = A.singular_values(eps='auto'); sv Expected: verbose 1 (<module>) singular values, smallest-non-zero:cutoff:largest-zero, 2.2766...:6.2421...e-14:1.4160...e-15 [35.139963659, 2.27661020871, 0.0, 0.0] Got: verbose 1 (<module>) singular values, smallest-non-zero:cutoff:largest-zero, 2.27661020871:6.2421114782e-14:8.24999265856e-16 [35.139963659, 2.27661020871, 0.0, 0.0] ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix_double_dense.pyx", line 1983: sage: Q Expected: [ -0.359210604054 0.569326179705 0.368048420509 0.641385845805] [ 0.179605302027 -0.144590775798 0.925041158846 -0.301884576418] [ 0.179605302027 -0.704880032016 0.0774617736597 0.681825307224] [ 0.898026510134 0.397624633445 -0.0532812182975 0.180566192161] Got: [ -0.359210604054 0.569326179705 -0.631992205475 -0.383954808874] [ 0.179605302027 -0.144590775798 -0.664300280125 0.711013769813] [ 0.179605302027 -0.704880032016 -0.397049825048 -0.559676256758] [ 0.898026510134 0.397624633445 -0.0405268611553 -0.183849426161] ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/local/king/SAGE/sage-4.7.2.alpha2/devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix_double_dense.pyx", line 1988: sage: R Expected: [ -5.56776436283 2.6940795304 -2.6940795304] [ 0 -3.56958477752 3.56958477752] [ 0 0 -9.93013661299e-16] [ 0 0 0] Got: [ -5.56776436283 2.6940795304 -2.6940795304] [ 0 -3.56958477752 3.56958477752] [ 0 0 4.41845043177e-16] [ 0 0 0] **********************************************************************
comment:60 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:61 follow-up: ↓ 62 Changed 6 years ago by
Thats x86 FPU for you! Working as intended!
comment:62 in reply to: ↑ 61 ; follow-up: ↓ 64 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:63 Changed 6 years ago by
Arrgh. Both errors occur in UNPATCHED sage-4.7.2.alpha2.
comment:64 in reply to: ↑ 62 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to vbraun:
Thats x86 FPU for you! Working as intended!
What does that mean?
This means that rounding on x86 double precision is perilous at best. Standard FPU and SSE instructions have different precision, and just to make sure you can never figure out what happened there is rounding when certain register values are stored in memory. Just fix up the doctests. They were probably caused by the updated atlas spkg which we haven't tested on your architecture / compiler version...
comment:65 Changed 6 years ago by
The errors do not occur with sage-4.7.2.alpha1 (even with my patches applied). Since alpha2 is not officially released anyway, I'll stick with alpha1 for now.
comment:66 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to Pickling of cached functions
I'd like to add one functionality: Pickling of cached functions!
Cached methods can be pickled. However, cached functions can not. Without my patch (in sage-4.6.2):
sage: from sage.databases.cunningham_tables import cunningham_prime_factors sage: loads(dumps(cunningham_prime_factors)) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PicklingError Traceback (most recent call last) /home/king/SAGE/work/categories/objects/<ipython console> in <module>() /mnt/local/king/SAGE/broken/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/structure/sage_object.so in sage.structure.sage_object.dumps (sage/structure/sage_object.c:8348)() PicklingError: Can't pickle <type 'function'>: attribute lookup __builtin__.function failed
With my patch:
sage: loads(dumps(cunningham_prime_factors)) Cached version of None
The last one is a bit grotesque... Anyway, I think it should be easy to add a an unpickling function that recovers a cached method from its name and module.
comment:67 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
The problem was easy to solve: The new __reduce__
method of cached functions returns an unpickling function, together with the module and the name of the cached function. The unpickling function can re-import the cached function from these data.
Example:
sage: type(cunningham_prime_factors) <type 'sage.misc.cachefunc.CachedFunction'> sage: loads(dumps(cunningham_prime_factors)) is cunningham_prime_factors #indirect doctest True
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115-ElementWithCache?.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch
comment:68 Changed 6 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from sage-4.7, #9976, #11298, #11342 to #9976 #11298 #11342
comment:69 Changed 6 years ago by
The patchbot does not understand that we have three patches. If I am not mistaken, the problem are the capital letters. Perhaps the following works?
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch
trac11115-ElementWithCache.patch
trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch
Changed 6 years ago by
Support cached methods for elements only if attributes can be assigned. Provide a subclass of Element that does fully support cached methods and lazy attributes
comment:70 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
Escaping the names did not work. So, I renamed one patch.
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch
comment:71 follow-up: ↓ 72 Changed 6 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Nicolas M. Thiéry, Andrey Novoseltsev
Ping, to the (or potential) reviewers... (#11068, which already has positive review, depends on this one.)
Simon, perhaps re-advertise it on sage-devel.
comment:72 in reply to: ↑ 71 ; follow-up: ↓ 73 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to leif:
Simon, perhaps re-advertise it on sage-devel.
AGAIN?? Would be the fourth or fifth time...
comment:73 in reply to: ↑ 72 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:74 Changed 6 years ago by
I'm getting fuzz with sage-4.7.2.alpha2 + #11342. Is there a dependency missing or does it just need to be rediffed?
comment:75 follow-up: ↓ 76 Changed 6 years ago by
Sorry, the fuzz comes from a conflict with #9138. So you need to rediff one of the two. Since the latter is in sage-4.7.2.alpha3, how about we add it to the dependencies and rediff this ticket?
comment:76 in reply to: ↑ 75 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues changed from Pickling of cached functions to Rebase wrt #9138
comment:77 Changed 6 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #9976 #11298 #11342 to #9976 #11298 #11342 #9138
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
- Work issues Rebase wrt #9138 deleted
Rebasing is done!
For the patchbot:
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch
comment:78 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:79 follow-ups: ↓ 80 ↓ 81 Changed 6 years ago by
Hmm, I get a different patch if I download at a remote machine. Seems like a caching problem. Didn't you have a similar problem a while ago? Maybe the trac server announces that it is ok to cache the patch files by proxies?
comment:80 in reply to: ↑ 79 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
Hmm, I get a different patch if I download at a remote machine. Seems like a caching problem. Didn't you have a similar problem a while ago? Maybe the trac server announces that it is ok to cache the patch files by proxies?
wget -N --no-cache ...
You can put default options into ~/.wgetrc
.
comment:81 in reply to: ↑ 79 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
Hmm, I get a different patch if I download at a remote machine. Seems like a caching problem. Didn't you have a similar problem a while ago?
Yes. My sysadmin told me how to switch of the cache proxy on my machine. If I remember correctly, it was similar to what Leif suggests.
Maybe the trac server announces that it is ok to cache the patch files by proxies?
I don't know if it is trac's fault.
Anyway, the patchbot finds that there is one failure:
File "/levi/scratch/robertwb/buildbot/sage-4.7.1/devel/sage-11115/sage/misc/cachefunc.pyx", line 228: sage: print sage_getdoc(O.wrapped_method) Expected: File: ... (starting at line ...) some doc for a wrapped cython method Got: some doc for a wrapped cython method <BLANKLINE>
That's strange, because sage_getdoc
is supposed to also provide the file and position - and it usually does. Do you get that error as well? I don't (I just verified it)!
comment:82 follow-up: ↓ 83 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:83 in reply to: ↑ 82 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
I get the same error with sage-4.7.2.alpha2 + #11342 + #9138. Are you also using the same starting point?
Bad. The problem is that my patch queue starts with #11342 and #9138 and #11115, but it continues which some polybori, M4RI
and M4RIE
patches/spkgs, that are a bit tedious to get rid of. SO, I will need some time before I can test.
comment:84 Changed 6 years ago by
Could you try with #11734 in addition?
I found a sage-4.7.2.alpha1 on my machine, with #11431, #11342, #11734, #11115, #9138 and #11068 applied. The error does not occur in this setting. Since the error is related with documentation and with wrapped methods, I could imagine that #11734 is needed to get rid of the error.
Best reagrds, Simon
comment:85 follow-up: ↓ 86 Changed 6 years ago by
No, still failing with the same error.
comment:86 in reply to: ↑ 85 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
No, still failing with the same error.
That's amazing. Definitely sage_getdoc
is supposed to provide the file and position information, not just the mere doc string.
Please try the following (I did this with unpatched sage-4.6.2):
sage: cython(""" ....: def test(x): ....: 'some doc string' ....: return None ....: """) sage: from sage.misc.sageinspect import sage_getdoc sage: print sage_getdoc(test) File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_14846_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 7) some doc string
Do you really get nothing more than 'some doc string'
?
comment:87 Changed 6 years ago by
Aha! There may be a difference between the doctest and the example from my previous post.
sage: cython(""" ....: class Bar(object): ....: def _sage_doc_(self): ....: return 'some doc string' ....: """) sage: sage_getdoc(Bar()) 'some doc string\n'
So, the file information is missing (both in sage-4.6.2 and sage-4.7.2.alpha2).
comment:88 follow-up: ↓ 89 Changed 6 years ago by
Anyway. I will try to get a fresh sage-4.7.2.alpha2 and see if I get the same error.
comment:89 in reply to: ↑ 88 ; follow-up: ↓ 90 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Anyway. I will try to get a fresh sage-4.7.2.alpha2 and see if I get the same error.
You could also try the current alpha3 prerelease, which I think won't change much more, and already contains #11342 and #9138. On top of almost all patches, I've applied #11749, which makes changes to almost every file of the Sage library.
comment:90 in reply to: ↑ 89 ; follow-up: ↓ 91 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to leif:
You could also try the current alpha3 prerelease
Too late, I already built sage-4.7.2.alpha2...
comment:91 in reply to: ↑ 90 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Too late, I already built sage-4.7.2.alpha2...
Or perhaps I'll get alpha3 and do everything else tomorrow morning.
comment:92 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
I couldn't resist to test right now.
Unfortunately, I can not reproduce the problem. I get:
king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/debug/sage-4.7.2.alpha3-prerelease/devel/sage$ ../../sage -t sage/misc/cachefunc.pyx sage -t "devel/sage-main/sage/misc/cachefunc.pyx" [15.4 s] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All tests passed! Total time for all tests: 15.4 seconds king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/debug/sage-4.7.2.alpha3-prerelease/devel/sage$ hg qapplied trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch
As you can see, it is sage-4.7.2.alpha3 with the three patches from here applied. So, is the error platform dependent? What could one do, then?
comment:93 follow-up: ↓ 94 Changed 6 years ago by
Leif and/or Volker, what happends if you do the following? Do you get essentially the same as I? In particular, can the file be found?
sage: cython_code = ['cpdef test_meth(self,x):', ... ' "some doc for a wrapped cython method"', ... ' return -x', ... 'from sage.all import cached_method', ... 'from sage.structure.parent cimport Parent', ... 'cdef class MyClass(Parent):', ... ' wrapped_method = cached_method(test_meth,name="wrapped_method")'] sage: cython('\n'.join(cython_code)) sage: O = MyClass() sage: from sage.misc.sageinspect import sage_getfile, sage_getargspec sage: sage_getargspec(O.wrapped_method) ArgSpec(args=['self', 'x'], varargs=None, keywords=None, defaults=None) sage: sage_getfile(O.wrapped_method) '/mnt/local/king/SAGE/debug/sage-4.7.2.alpha3-prerelease/devel/sage/_mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_4939_tmp_1_spyx_0.pyx'
Does O.wrapped_method?
and O.wrapped_method??
work for you, or is it impossible to open the source file? If the latter is the case: What is O.wrapped_method.__module__
?
I suppose that the problem is actually located in _sage_getdoc_unformatted
, because for me it already returns the file and embedding information:
from sage.misc.sageinspect import _sage_getdoc_unformatted sage: _sage_getdoc_unformatted(O.wrapped_method) 'File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_4939_tmp_1_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method'
comment:94 in reply to: ↑ 93 Changed 6 years ago by
PS:
Replying to SimonKing:
sage: sage_getfile(O.wrapped_method) '/mnt/local/king/SAGE/debug/sage-4.7.2.alpha3-prerelease/devel/sage/_mnt_local_kingsage_temp_mpc622_4939_tmp_1_spyx_0.pyx'
It just occurs to me that this is the wrong location: Such file does not exist. A file of that name is only somewhere in SAGE_TMP
, but not in SAGE_ROOT
.
I don't know if it would solve the problem, though.
comment:95 Changed 6 years ago by
The problem with the wrong source file directory reminded me another ticket, namely #11791.
When I start with sage-4.7.2.alpha3-prerelease and add #11768+#11791+#11115, I get the following:
sage: cython_code = ['cpdef test_meth(self,x):', ....: ... ' "some doc for a wrapped cython method"', ....: ... ' return -x', ....: ... 'from sage.all import cached_method', ....: ... 'from sage.structure.parent cimport Parent', ....: ... 'cdef class MyClass(Parent):', ....: ... ' wrapped_method = cached_method(test_meth,name="wrapped_method")'] sage: cython('\n'.join(cython_code)) sage: O = MyClass() sage: from sage.misc.sageinspect import sage_getfile, sage_getdoc sage: sage_getfile(O.wrapped_method) '/mnt/local/king/.sage/temp/mpc622/8600//spyx/_mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_8600_tmp_0_spyx/_mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_8600_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx' sage: print sage_getdoc(O.wrapped_method) File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_8600_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6) some doc for a wrapped cython method
Note that on my machine I do not need #11791 for avoiding the doctest error. But perhaps #11791 solves the problem for you?
comment:96 follow-up: ↓ 98 Changed 6 years ago by
Mysteriously, the _sage_getdoc_unformatted
function works for me:
sage: sage: _sage_getdoc_unformatted(O.wrapped_method) 'File: _home_vbraun__sage_temp_volker_desktop_stp_dias_ie_17521_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method'
I'm compiling pre-alpha-3 version right now to see if that helps.
Also, I get errors applying #11791 on top of sage-4.7.2.alpha2 + #11342 + #9138 + #11115 + #11734.
comment:97 follow-up: ↓ 100 Changed 6 years ago by
No, it is all totally different. It should have nothing to do with #11791 (but of course you may try).
In the code in my example, one starts with a function test_meth
, that has a doc string. When test_meth
is turned into a cached method, the doc string of test_meth
is directly used as a doc string for the cached method.
When I do
sage: print test_meth.__doc__ File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_8600_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6) some doc for a wrapped cython method
then the doc string contains the file info.
You do not get that file info, right? But then, it has nothing to do with cached methods, because test_meth
is a plain cpdef Cython function.
What happens when you do sage_getfile(test_meth)
or test_meth??
?
comment:98 in reply to: ↑ 96 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:99 Changed 6 years ago by
Sorry for posting again. But could you test print test_meth.__doc__
with any sage version on your machine?
comment:100 in reply to: ↑ 97 ; follow-up: ↓ 101 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
What happens when you do
sage_getfile(test_meth)
ortest_meth??
?
sage: sage_getfile(test_meth) '/home/vbraun/Sage/sage/devel/sage/_home_vbraun__sage_temp_volker_desktop_stp_dias_ie_5615_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx' sage: test_meth?? Type: builtin_function_or_method Base Class: <type 'builtin_function_or_method'> String Form: <built-in function test_meth> Namespace: Interactive Definition: test_meth(self, x) Source: cpdef test_meth(self,x): "some doc for a wrapped cython method" return -x sage: test_meth.__doc__ 'File: _home_vbraun__sage_temp_volker_desktop_stp_dias_ie_5615_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method'
comment:101 in reply to: ↑ 100 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
sage: test_meth.doc 'File: _home_vbraunsage_temp_volker_desktop_stp_dias_ie_5615_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method'
That is extremely strange. If you look at the _sage_doc_
method in sage.misc.cachefunc
then you'll find:
f = self.f if hasattr(f, "func_doc"): try: sourcelines = sage_getsourcelines(f) except IOError: sourcelines = None if sourcelines is not None: import os SAGE_ROOT = os.environ['SAGE_ROOT'] filename = sage_getfile(f) # The following is a heuristics to get # the file name of the cached function # or method if filename.startswith(SAGE_ROOT+'/devel/sage/'): filename = filename[len(SAGE_ROOT+'/devel/sage/'):] elif 'site-packages/' in filename: filename = filename.split('site-packages/',1)[1] file_info = "File: %s (starting at line %d)"%(filename,sourcelines[1]) doc = file_info+(f.func_doc or '') else: doc = f.func_doc else: doc = f.__doc__ return doc
Here, self
is O.wrapped_method
, and thus f
is test_meth
. Since a Cython function has no attribute func_doc
, the method _sage_doc_
simply returns f.__doc__
in our case, which does contain the file information.
Or is it the case that test_meth
has a func_doc
attribute on your machine?
comment:102 Changed 6 years ago by
After some prodding around, i noticed this:
sage: from sage.misc.sageinspect import _extract_embedded_position sage: import sage.misc.sagedoc sage: r = 'File: _home_vbraun__sage_temp_volker_desktop_stp_dias_ie_17521_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method' sage: sage.misc.sagedoc.format(r,embedded=False) 'File: _home_vbraun__sage_temp_volker_desktop_stp_dias_ie_17521_tmp_0_s\npyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6) some doc for a wrapped cython method\n' sage: _extract_embedded_position(_) (' some doc for a wrapped cython method\n', '/home/vbraun/Sage/sage/devel/sage/_home_vbraun__sage_temp_volker_desktop_stp_dias_ie_17521_tmp_0_s\npyx_0.pyx', 6)
(is the \n
in the middle of the name intentional?) vs.
sage: r = 'File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_4939_tmp_1_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method' sage: sage.misc.sagedoc.format(r,embedded=False) 'File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_4939_tmp_1_spyx_0.pyx\n(starting at line 6) some doc for a wrapped cython method\n' sage: _extract_embedded_position(_) sage:
See the source of sage_getdoc()
comment:103 Changed 6 years ago by
It is more and more strange. I don't know whether the line break in the name has a meaning or not. But for sure, _extract_embedded_position(_)
does return something meaningful in your second example. I get:
sage: r = 'File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_4939_tmp_1_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method' sage: print r File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_4939_tmp_1_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6) some doc for a wrapped cython method sage: print sage.misc.sagedoc.format(r,embedded=False)File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_4939_tmp_1_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6) some doc for a wrapped cython method
But still I find it most puzzling that on your machine O.wrapped_method._sage_doc_()
does not return the same as O.wrapped_method.f.__doc__
- or does it?
comment:104 follow-up: ↓ 105 Changed 6 years ago by
They both return the same:
sage: O.wrapped_method._sage_doc_() 'File: _home_vbraun__sage_temp_volker_desktop_stp_dias_ie_22122_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method' sage: O.wrapped_method.f.__doc__ 'File: _home_vbraun__sage_temp_volker_desktop_stp_dias_ie_22122_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method'
But whenever _extract_embedded_position
does not return None
the line number is chopped off in sage_doc()
.
comment:105 in reply to: ↑ 104 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
But whenever
_extract_embedded_position
does not returnNone
the line number is chopped off insage_doc()
.
I see, that could be it. However, as I have indicated above, _extract_embedded_position
returns something non-None in both your examples, on my machine.
But let us consider the doc of sage_getdoc
: It states that the embedded position is stripped from the doc string. Hence, actually the embedding should be shown with _sage_getdoc_unformatted
, but not with _sage_getdoc
.
So, after all, the fact that the embedded position is not stripped on my machine could be a bug.
comment:106 Changed 6 years ago by
More precisely: There is a difference on my machine between sage_getdoc
and _sage_getdoc_unformatted
, but the difference on you machine is different...
I get
sage: from sage.misc.sageinspect import sage_getdoc, _sage_getdoc_unformatted sage: _sage_getdoc_unformatted(O.wrapped_method) 'File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_9687_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method' sage: sage_getdoc(O.wrapped_method) 'File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_9687_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx\n(starting at line 6) some doc for a wrapped cython method\n'
whereas you seem to get just 'some doc for a wrapped cython method'
when calling sage_doc
, right?
comment:107 Changed 6 years ago by
I suggest to go through sage_getdoc
step by step. For me, it is as follows:
sage: from sage.misc.sageinspect import sage_getdoc, _sage_getdoc_unformatted, _extract_embedded_position sage: sage.misc.sageinspect.EMBEDDED_MODE False sage: obj = O.wrapped_method sage: r = _sage_getdoc_unformatted(obj) sage: s = sage.misc.sagedoc.format(str(r), embedded=False) sage: print s File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_9687_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6) some doc for a wrapped cython method sage: print r File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_9687_tmp_0_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6) some doc for a wrapped cython method
Is the result for s fundamentally different on your machine?
sage: pos = _extract_embedded_position(s) sage: pos is None True
Aha! And I suppose you get pos!=None
!
comment:108 follow-up: ↓ 109 Changed 6 years ago by
Yes, the formatting runs sphinxify, which inserts newlines:
sage: r = 'File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_4939_tmp_1_spyx_0.pyx (starting at line 6)\nsome doc for a wrapped cython method' sage: from sagenb.misc.sphinxify import sphinxify sage: sphinxify(r, format='text') 'File: _mnt_local_king__sage_temp_mpc622_4939_tmp_1_spyx_0.pyx\n(starting at line 6) some doc for a wrapped cython method\n'
You were lucky and the newline is right between the file name and the (starting
. When that happens, the sage.misc.sageinspect.__embedded_position_re
regular expression fails to match.
comment:109 in reply to: ↑ 108 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
You were lucky and the newline is right between the file name and the
(starting
. When that happens, thesage.misc.sageinspect.__embedded_position_re
regular expression fails to match.
The fact that the position of the inserted line breaks depends on the length of the file name seems pretty much to be a bug in sage.misc.sagedoc.format
, don't you think?
comment:110 follow-up: ↓ 111 Changed 6 years ago by
Come to think of it, I was probably just unlucky. Sphinxify tries to put the newline in a space, but my filename is too long so it is forced to insert it mid-word. So the doctests breaks for be because my hostname is too long ;-)
The bug is in sage_doc()
, it should first try to match regular expressions and only afterwards format the string (by inserting newlines at random places).
comment:111 in reply to: ↑ 110 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
Come to think of it, I was probably just unlucky.
The fact that one can be unlucky is a bug.
The bug is in
sage_doc()
...
Really? I'd rather locate it in sage.misc.sagedoc.format
...
, it should first try to match regular expressions and only afterwards format the string (by inserting newlines at random places).
No. format' should not apply the whole formatting business to the first line of the string, if that line contains an embedding information. Then,
sage_getdoc` would not be in trouble at all.
comment:112 Changed 6 years ago by
I think, I can make it work with a change in sage.misc.sagedoc.format
. By consequence, sage_getdoc will return the doc without embedding information (that's to say, in the same way as you find it), and _sage_getdoc_unformatted will always contain the embedding information.
Procedure: I'll open a new ticket for that problem, and make it a dependency.
comment:113 Changed 6 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #9976 #11298 #11342 #9138 to #9976 #11298 #11342 #9138 #11815
- Work issues set to rebase relative to #11815
comment:114 Changed 6 years ago by
I added the dependency, but now I have to rebase it, because now some doc test will behave as they currently only do on Volker's machine...
comment:115 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
I modified the last of the three patches, so that the doctests of sage/misc/cachefunc.pyx pass.
By the new dependency #11815, sage_getdoc will now correctly strip the embedding information, even if one has a rather lengthy file name. Thus, needs review!
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch
comment:116 Changed 6 years ago by
And the good news is that I can't really see any doc test error in the log of the patchbot...
comment:117 follow-up: ↓ 118 Changed 6 years ago by
How is one now supposed to find out whether a function without arguments is cached?
sage: class Foo: ... def __init__(self): ... pass ... @cached_method ... def f(self): ... return self._x*z+y ... sage: a = Foo() sage: a.f.is_in_cache() Traceback (most recent call last): ... TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not callable
I haven't added the sage_getdoc()
fixes yet to my patch queue, but I think this problem is unrelated.
comment:118 in reply to: ↑ 117 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues changed from rebase relative to #11815 to is_in_cache without arguments
Replying to vbraun:
How is one now supposed to find out whether a function without arguments is cached?
That's a bug. Fixing it now...
Changed 6 years ago by
Cythonized cached_method: Usable in Cython code, faster than handwritten Python cache. Special case for methods w/o arguments. Make ClearCacheOnPickle? usable. Lazy attributes
comment:119 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
- Work issues is_in_cache without arguments deleted
Done (changing the first of the three patches)
New doctest:
sage: P.<x,y> = QQ[] sage: I = P*[x,y] sage: I.gens.is_in_cache() False sage: I.gens() [x, y] sage: I.gens.is_in_cache() True
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch
comment:120 follow-up: ↓ 121 Changed 6 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from Nicolas M. Thiéry, Andrey Novoseltsev to Nicolas M. Thiéry, Andrey Novoseltsev, Volker Braun
I've added a reviewer patch. Everything else is fine with me. Please set it to positive review if you agree with patch.
comment:121 in reply to: ↑ 120 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Replying to vbraun:
I've added a reviewer patch. Everything else is fine with me. Please set it to positive review if you agree with patch.
Thank you very much, both for the review and for your reviewer patch!
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch trac_11115_reviewer.patch
comment:122 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.7.2 to sage-4.7.3
comment:123 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:124 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.7.3 to sage-pending
comment:125 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:126 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to docbuild
This gives problems with the documentation:
sphinx-build -b html -d /mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.7.3.alpha1/devel/sage/doc/output/doctrees/en/reference -A hide_pdf_link s=1 /mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.7.3.alpha1/devel/sage/doc/en/reference /mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.7.3.alpha1/de vel/sage/doc/output/html/en/reference Running Sphinx v1.0.4 loading pickled environment... not yet created building [html]: targets for 933 source files that are out of date updating environment: 933 added, 0 changed, 0 removed reading sources... [ 0%] algebras reading sources... [ 0%] arithgroup [...] reading sources... [ 99%] structure reading sources... [ 99%] tensor reading sources... [100%] todolist <autodoc>:0: (ERROR/3) Unexpected indentation. <autodoc>:0: (ERROR/3) Unexpected indentation. looking for now-outdated files... none found pickling environment... done checking consistency... done preparing documents... done writing output... [ 0%] algebras writing output... [ 0%] arithgroup [...] writing output... [ 99%] tensor writing output... [100%] todolist writing additional files... genindex py-modindex search copying images... [ 16%] media/homology/simplices.png copying images... [ 33%] media/homology/rp2.png copying images... [ 50%] media/heawood-graph-latex.png copying images... [ 66%] media/homology/torus.png copying images... [ 83%] media/homology/torus_labelled.png copying images... [100%] media/homology/klein.png copying static files... done dumping search index... done dumping object inventory... done build succeeded, 2 warnings. Build finished. The built documents can be found in /mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.7.3.alpha1/devel/sage/doc/output/html/en/ref erence
comment:127 follow-up: ↓ 128 Changed 5 years ago by
And how is the docbuild problem related with this patch? It is not clear to me from the docbuild output: Which file has the "unexpected indentation"?
But I guess it needs to be rebased against #11900 anyway, isn't it?
comment:128 in reply to: ↑ 127 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
And how is the docbuild problem related with this patch? It is not clear to me from the docbuild output: Which file has the "unexpected indentation"?
Unfortunately, that's not clear to me either. I was hoping maybe you had an idea, but apparently not.
The patches do apply with #11900, I don't remember how cleanly.
comment:129 Changed 5 years ago by
I can confirm that there is some problem with the docs. I don't know if it is caused by, revealed by, or unrelated with, this patch:
reading sources... [100%] sage/symbolic/ring <autodoc>:0: (ERROR/3) Unexpected indentation. <autodoc>:0: (ERROR/3) Unexpected indentation.
I wouldn't mind to fix it here. I am only a bit nervous whether I'm shooting myself in the foot: In many of my patches, I am fixing some wrongly formatted doc strings - and it could very well be that this particular problem is already fixed in another of my patches.
comment:130 Changed 5 years ago by
Nope. It turned out that the problem is not in sage.symbolic.ring. I touched it, rebuilt, rebuilt the docs: No complaints. Is there a way to find out what file is actually causing trouble?
comment:131 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_info
Sorry, I can not reliably reproduce it.
I applied the patches from here, then did sage -docbuild reference html
, and saw the same error that you found. If I am not mistaken, I did not docbuild this installation of Sage before.
Since the error seemed to indicate a problem in sage.symbolic.ring, I touched it, rebuilt, and repeated sage -docbuild reference html
- but it worked without an error. Hence, it probably isn't sage.symbolic.ring after all.
Next, I removed the patches (if you do, don't forget rm build/sage/misc/cachefunc.*
and rm build/*/sage/misc/cachefunc.py
before sage -b
). The docs still built fine.
Then, I was applying the first patch from here, and again built sage and the docs - and it worked without problem! The same happened after applying the remaining patches as well.
Conclusion: I doubt that my patch is to blame for the docbuild problem.
So, how did you come to the conclusion that the problem lies here?
comment:132 follow-up: ↓ 133 Changed 5 years ago by
This is what I did to test:
- I downloaded sage-4.7.2.alpha4.tar and built from scratch. Docbuild with
sage -docbuild reference html
was fine. - I applied #9138. After
sage -b
, I repeated building the reference manual, and it was still fine. - I applied #11900 to compensate for the speed regression of #9138, followed by
sage -b
. The references were still building fine. - I applied the four patches from here. For the record: They applied cleanly.
sage -br
worked, and: Building the references went without problems.
In other words: While I did met a problem when working on top of sage-4.7.2.alpha3, I can not replicate what you found when starting with sage-4.7.2.alpha4.
Does that mean the positive review can be restored?
comment:133 in reply to: ↑ 132 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
In other words: While I did met a problem when working on top of sage-4.7.2.alpha3, I can not replicate what you found when starting with sage-4.7.2.alpha4.
What happens if you first remove all output and then build the documentation:
$ rm -r SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/doc/output $ make doc-html
comment:134 follow-up: ↓ 136 Changed 5 years ago by
Wild speculation: could it be that your patch indirectly changes docstrings of certain methods?
More generally: perhaps the problem is not with a doctest that this patch changed/added but with the docbuilding process? Also because the error is very weird, normally you would indeed get an error with a specific file.
comment:135 Changed 5 years ago by
PS: After that, I applied the second patch of #11943 and got
reading sources... [100%] sage/structure/category_object <autodoc>:0: (ERROR/3) Unexpected indentation. <autodoc>:0: (ERROR/3) Unexpected indentation.
So, while #11115 seems to be innocent, there does seem to be something wrong in sage.structure.category_object.
But the problem remains mysterious. Namely, not only was the resulting reference page looking fine, but also after touching sage/structure/category_object.pyx, sage -b
and sage -docbuild reference html
worked just fine.
I did not try removing all output, though. Doing now.
comment:136 in reply to: ↑ 134 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Wild speculation: could it be that your patch indirectly changes docstrings of certain methods?
Sure. But part of the problem is the fact that we can't locate the error yet: What file is affected? What function/method?
comment:137 follow-up: ↓ 138 Changed 5 years ago by
OK, the first step is done: I removed the patches from here, i.e., I have applied
9138_flat.patch trac11900_no_categories_for_matrices.patch trac11900_category_speedup.patch trac11900_further_tweaks.patch
on top of sage-4.7.2.alpha4. After removing the doc output and doing make doc-html
, all docs built fine.
Now, I am applying the patches from here, sage -b
, then I'll remove the output again, start building the docs, and go drink a coffee (building the docs takes an awful lot of time!).
comment:138 in reply to: ↑ 137 ; follow-up: ↓ 139 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
Replying to SimonKing:
Now, I am applying the patches from here,
sage -b
, then I'll remove the output again, start building the docs, and go drink a coffee (building the docs takes an awful lot of time!).
After the coffee, I found:
king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4/devel/sage$ make doc-html ... build succeeded. Build finished. The built documents can be found in /mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4/devel/sage/doc/output/html/ru/tutorial king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4$ cd devel/sage king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4/devel/sage$ hg qapplied 9138_flat.patch trac11900_no_categories_for_matrices.patch trac11900_category_speedup.patch trac11900_further_tweaks.patch trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch trac_11115_reviewer.patch
Hence, I definitely can not reproduce your findings, at least not with sage-4.7.2.alpha4.
comment:139 in reply to: ↑ 138 ; follow-ups: ↓ 140 ↓ 141 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Replying to SimonKing:
Now, I am applying the patches from here,
sage -b
, then I'll remove the output again, start building the docs, and go drink a coffee (building the docs takes an awful lot of time!).After the coffee, I found:
king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4/devel/sage$ make doc-html ... build succeeded. Build finished. The built documents can be found in /mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4/devel/sage/doc/output/html/ru/tutorial king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4$ cd devel/sage king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4/devel/sage$ hg qapplied 9138_flat.patch trac11900_no_categories_for_matrices.patch trac11900_category_speedup.patch trac11900_further_tweaks.patch trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch trac_11115_reviewer.patchHence, I definitely can not reproduce your findings, at least not with sage-4.7.2.alpha4.
Did you double-check that there is no error in the log file?
$ grep -i error dochtml.log
(note that the log file is always appended to, so you need to find the last make doc-html
run within the logfile).
comment:140 in reply to: ↑ 139 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
(note that the log file is always appended to, so you need to find the last
make doc-html
run within the logfile).
So, it would be very difficult to find out which run worked and which didn't. Unfortunately, before reading your post, I have already started building docs with #11900. Thus, the log for #11115 is not the last part but the last but one part of the log file. And I already saw on screen that with #11900 I am again getting the ominous doc build error.
I must admit, it confuses me.
comment:141 in reply to: ↑ 139 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Did you double-check that there is no error in the log file?
$ grep -i error dochtml.log
Will dochtml.log contain exactly the same that is printed on screen? Because I did scroll the screen up and did not see any error. But I think, for being on the safe side, I will return to #11115, remove the output, remove dochtml.log, and build the docs again - because in that case I can be sure that the log file only contains data of one run.
comment:142 Changed 5 years ago by
First part: With #9138 and #11900 only and a clean dochtml.log, I have
king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4$ grep -i error dochtml.log reading sources... [ 79%] sage/rings/padics/precision_error writing output... [ 79%] sage/rings/padics/precision_error
So, no error prior to #11115.
comment:143 Changed 5 years ago by
Now I can finally confirm the error: After applying #11115 and rebuilding the docs, I find
king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4$ grep -i error dochtml.log reading sources... [ 79%] sage/rings/padics/precision_error <autodoc>:0: (ERROR/3) Unexpected indentation. <autodoc>:0: (ERROR/3) Unexpected indentation. writing output... [ 79%] sage/rings/padics/precision_error
I think it is very likely that the problem occurs in the documentation of a cached method. Hence, I will modify the _sage_doc_ method of cached methods, so that the doc string will be stored in some log file - and then, I can see what's wrong.
comment:144 Changed 5 years ago by
Debugging will not be totally easy. Apparently, 1153 cached methods/functions appear in the docs. I hope I can find the two needles in that haystack...
comment:145 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
It is frustrating. I made _sage_doc_ of cached functions and methods print all doc strings into a file, and looking over the 1153 instances (some of them with repetition) actually made me fix some misformatted doc strings.
However, the two needles have not been among them.
comment:146 follow-up: ↓ 147 Changed 5 years ago by
Good and bad news: When I collected all 1153 doc strings into a single test file and built its documentation, there was no "unexpected unindent". Hence, cached methods or functions are not to blame.
The bad news is that I can not locate the error. I have to carefully read my patches again. Perhaps there is a change to the _sage_doc_ of a different method decorator?
comment:147 in reply to: ↑ 146 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
I have to carefully read my patches again. Perhaps there is a change to the _sage_doc_ of a different method decorator?
Bad luck. Searching for "doc" in all patches showed me that the doctest behaviour is changed only in one place: _sage_doc_ for cached functions/methods. And my previous attempts to track down any wrongly formatted doc strings returned by _sage_doc_ have failed.
comment:148 Changed 5 years ago by
I am now trying a more radical method to find out what happened: I've built the documentation with the first patch (the first patch is responsible for the two errors), moved it to a different location, then built the documentation without the patch, and now I am doing a kdiff3.
There are many differenced, but I hope kdiff3 will relatively easily tell me what really went wrong.
comment:149 Changed 5 years ago by
And I already got something that looks wrong!
The doc string of modp_splitting_data starts with "Return mod p splitting data for this quaternion algebra at " - and this half sentence is missing with my patch! Mysterious.
comment:150 Changed 5 years ago by
The doc for the reference manual is obtained by _sage_getdoc_unformatted
. The difference in the output with or without my patch is that the docstring contains embedding information with my patch. That is important for introspection - otherwise, one has
sage: sage_getfile(Q.modp_splitting_data) '/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha3/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages/sage/misc/cachefunc.py'
Having the embedding information (such as 'File: sage/algebras/quatalg/quaternion_algebra.py (starting at line 859)'
) is a very usual thing. If I am not mistaken, it occurs for any extension class. So, I am very surprised to see that this is a problem.
Actually, it seems that the first line of the doc string is systematically suppressed for cached methods - the same happens for groebner_basis()
and other cached methods.
So, that looks to me like a bug in pre-processing the doc strings for building the references.
comment:151 Changed 5 years ago by
Wow! It seems that the embedding information for an extension class is always followed by a blank line - which is not the case for cached methods, with my patch.
I bet that the problem will be solved by simply inserting a blank line after the embedding information!
comment:152 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Hooray! With the blank line, the missing first lines of the modp_splitting_data
doc string (and other instances) re-appear, and most importantly the error has vanished:
king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.7.2.alpha4$ grep -i error dochtml.log reading sources... [ 79%] sage/rings/padics/precision_error writing output... [ 79%] sage/rings/padics/precision_error
The new patch does the following:
- Fix some wrong docstring formats that I stumbled over.
- Add the required blank line after the embedding information in the doc strings of cached methods.
- In two cases, a cached function has been created by first defining a non-cached function, e.g.
adem_
, and then definingadem = CachedFunction(adem_)
. If I am not mistaken, both functions would be included in the docs, which is not good. So, for aesthetic reasons, I rewrote it using@cached_function
.
I am now running doc tests. It could be that some tests in sage_inspect will fail. But I am confident enough to turn it into "needs review".
For the patch bot:
Apply trac11115-cached_cython.patch trac11115_element_with_cache.patch trac11115_cached_function_pickling.patch trac_11115_reviewer.patch trac_11115_docfix.patch
comment:153 follow-up: ↓ 155 Changed 5 years ago by
FWIW: All tests pass!
So, I hope that we will soon find someone who restores the positive review. But please have a look at the last patch!
comment:154 Changed 5 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #9976 #11298 #11342 #9138 #11815 to #9976, #11298, #11342, #9138, #11815, #11972
- Description modified (diff)
- Work issues docbuild deleted
First four patches flattened and rebased.
Changed 5 years ago by
comment:155 in reply to: ↑ 153 ; follow-ups: ↓ 156 ↓ 158 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Replying to SimonKing:
FWIW: All tests pass!
I get errors with long tests, because of the mismatch between steenrod_algebra_basis_
and steenrod_algebra_basis
:
sage -t -long -force_lib devel/sage/sage/algebras/steenrod/steenrod_algebra_bases.py ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.7.3.alpha1/devel/sage-main/sage/algebras/steenrod/steenrod_algebra_bases.py", line 1125: sage: steenrod_basis_error_check(15,2) # long time Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.7.3.alpha1/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.7.3.alpha1/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.7.3.alpha1/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_12[3]>", line 1, in <module> steenrod_basis_error_check(Integer(15),Integer(2)) # long time###line 1125: sage: steenrod_basis_error_check(15,2) # long time File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.7.3.alpha1/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/algebras/steenrod/steenrod_algebra_bases.py", line 1143, in steenrod_basis_error_check milnor_dim = len(steenrod_algebra_basis_(i,'milnor',p=p)) NameError: global name 'steenrod_algebra_basis_' is not defined **********************************************************************
(2 similar errors in the same file)
comment:156 in reply to: ↑ 155 ; follow-up: ↓ 157 Changed 5 years ago by
comment:157 in reply to: ↑ 156 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
Is that because of #11972, that you added as a dependency?
I don't think so, it is because of trac_11115_docfix.patch
comment:158 in reply to: ↑ 155 Changed 5 years ago by
comment:159 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
I have updated the docfix patch. The new patch also removes references to the old uncached underscore versions of the cached functions in the references.
I find
../../sage -t -long sage/algebras/steenrod/ sage -t -long "devel/sage-main/sage/algebras/steenrod/steenrod_algebra_bases.py" [15.0 s] sage -t -long "devel/sage-main/sage/algebras/steenrod/steenrod_algebra_misc.py" [2.2 s] sage -t -long "devel/sage-main/sage/algebras/steenrod/all.py" [2.2 s] sage -t -long "devel/sage-main/sage/algebras/steenrod/steenrod_algebra_mult.py" [2.2 s] sage -t -long "devel/sage-main/sage/algebras/steenrod/steenrod_algebra.py" [36.7 s] sage -t -long "devel/sage-main/sage/algebras/steenrod/__init__.py" [0.1 s] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All tests passed!
Apply 11115_flat.patch trac_11115_docfix.patch
comment:160 Changed 5 years ago by
All tests pass indeed.
comment:161 follow-up: ↓ 162 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
There are some problems with the new Cython (#11761, to be merged in sage-4.8.alpha1), the following fails:
sage -t -force_lib devel/sage/sage/misc/cachefunc.pyx ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha2/devel/sage-main/sage/misc/cachefunc.pyx", line 97: sage: cython('\n'.join(cython_code)) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha2/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha2/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha2/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_0[18]>", line 1, in <module> cython('\n'.join(cython_code))###line 97: sage: cython('\n'.join(cython_code)) File "cython_c.pyx", line 61, in sage.misc.cython_c.cython (sage/misc/cython_c.c:688) sage.server.support.cython_import_all(tmpfile, globals(), File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha2/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/server/support.py", line 473, in cython_import_all create_local_c_file=create_local_c_file) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha2/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/server/support.py", line 450, in cython_import **kwds) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha2/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/misc/cython.py", line 403, in cython raise RuntimeError, "Error converting %s to C:\n%s\n%s"%(filename, log, err) RuntimeError: Error converting /scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-4.8.alpha2/home/.sage//temp/sage.math.washington.edu/5609//tmp_2.spyx to C: Error compiling Cython file: ------------------------------------------------------------ ... include "cdefs.pxi" from sage.all import cached_method, cached_in_parent_method, Category class MyCategory(Category): @cached_method def super_categories(self): return [Objects()] ^ ------------------------------------------------------------ _scratch_jdemeyer_merger_sage_4_8_alpha2_home__sage_temp_sage_math_washington_edu_5609_tmp_2_spyx_0.pyx:10:23: undeclared name not builtin: Objects **********************************************************************
comment:162 in reply to: ↑ 161 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
There are some problems with the new Cython (#11761, to be merged in sage-4.8.alpha1), the following fails:
include "cdefs.pxi" from sage.all import cached_method, cached_in_parent_method, Category class MyCategory?(Category):
@cached_method def super_categories(self):
return [Objects()]
It is actually surprising that this used to work. After all, Objects has not been imported.
comment:163 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
I have added the import statement to the second patch, and obtain:
king@mpc622:/mnt/local/king/SAGE/rebase/sage-4.8.alpha0/devel/sage$ ../../sage -t sage/misc/cachefunc.pyx sage -t "devel/sage-main/sage/misc/cachefunc.pyx" [13.0 s] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All tests passed!
comment:164 follow-up: ↓ 165 Changed 5 years ago by
I wonder: Isn't the same doc test also in other files? sage/structure/element.pyx? I have to leave now, but will check it.
Changed 5 years ago by
Fix some doc strings, and add the required blank line after embedding information for cached methods
comment:165 in reply to: ↑ 164 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
I wonder: Isn't the same doc test also in other files? sage/structure/element.pyx? I have to leave now, but will check it.
Yes, the same problem occurs in sage/structure/element.pyx. It is fixed with the new version of the docfix patch that I have just attached. At least parent.pyx, element.pyx and cachefunc.pyx pass, and I am now running all doc tests.
But I think it is ok to keep the status "needs review". Recall: The review concerns the docfix patch, the first patch already has a positive review.
comment:166 Changed 5 years ago by
FWIW: ./sage -tp 6 -long devel/sage/sage/
passes for me!
comment:167 Changed 5 years ago by
Is there no reviewer for the docfix patch, so that we can finally have fast cached methods?
comment:168 follow-up: ↓ 169 Changed 5 years ago by
The doctest patch looks fine to me. But as I understand it, before this one is switched to positive review, its implicit dependency #11900 must be approved.
comment:169 in reply to: ↑ 168 ; follow-up: ↓ 174 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to novoselt:
The doctest patch looks fine to me. But as I understand it, before this one is switched to positive review, its implicit dependency #11900 must be approved.
Of course, it can only be merged if all dependencies have been merged. But as far as I understand (I know several examples), a patch can get a positive review even when one of its dependencies needs work.
But perhaps the release manager can tell more?
comment:170 follow-up: ↓ 171 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
After you review it positively you set it to positive review :-)
comment:171 in reply to: ↑ 170 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
After you review it positively you set it to positive review :-)
Just to make sure: Andrey, did you really intend to set it to positive review? Or did you merely say "the second patch seems OK, but for a review I need to look more closely"?
comment:172 Changed 5 years ago by
Well, I didn't run tests yet, but assuming that patches apply and doctests pass, it is positive review. I read the second patch and don't think that anything has to be changed in it.
comment:173 Changed 5 years ago by
And I confirm that all long tests do pass on sage-4.8.alpha2. I had fuzz with #11900, but that's the one which is still in the works. Yay to standard cached methods, they are much more pleasant to work with than catching AttributeError
!
comment:174 in reply to: ↑ 169 ; follow-up: ↓ 176 Changed 5 years ago by
- Dependencies changed from #9976, #11298, #11342, #9138, #11815, #11972 to #9138, #11900
Replying to SimonKing:
Of course, it can only be merged if all dependencies have been merged. But as far as I understand (I know several examples), a patch can get a positive review even when one of its dependencies needs work.
But perhaps the release manager can tell more?
What Simon said is exactly right: a patch can get positive_review even when the dependencies do not yet have positive_review.
I really hope that #11900 can get reviewed soon, it would be nice indeed to have #9138 and #11115 in Sage.
comment:175 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:176 in reply to: ↑ 174 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
I really hope that #11900 can get reviewed soon, it would be nice indeed to have #9138 and #11115 in Sage.
I have been through most of that patch with Simon, and I just now need to make a final pass. I had planned to do it on Friday, but got delayed by some sagetex hacking for the upcoming new version of the French sagebook. Most likely, I'll get to do it next Tuesday.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:177 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-pending to sage-5.0
comment:178 Changed 5 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.0.beta0
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:179 follow-up: ↓ 180 Changed 2 years ago by
Could you please explain this line in src/sage/misc/cachefunc.pxd
?
# cache is not always of type "dict"!
It seems that the implementation assumes that cache
is a dict
anyway (I see lots of <dict>self.cache
in the code).
comment:180 in reply to: ↑ 179 ; follow-up: ↓ 181 Changed 2 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Could you please explain this line in
src/sage/misc/cachefunc.pxd
?# cache is not always of type "dict"!
That's why:
sage: from weakref import WeakValueDictionary sage: W = WeakValueDictionary() sage: isinstance(W, dict) False
We use weak value dictionaries for weak_cached_function.
It seems that the implementation assumes that
cache
is adict
anyway (I see lots of<dict>self.cache
in the code).
But certainly not in weak_cached_function.
comment:181 in reply to: ↑ 180 Changed 2 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
It seems that the implementation assumes that
cache
is adict
anyway (I see lots of<dict>self.cache
in the code).But certainly not in weak_cached_function.
I think that's a bad design with all the <dict>
casts. I would have prefered something more like:
class BaseCachedFunction(object): pass class CachedFunction(BaseCachedFunction): cdef dict cache class WeakCachedFunction(BaseCachedFunction): cdef WeakValueDictionary cache
This is like the classes for dense/sparse vectors.
comment:182 follow-up: ↓ 183 Changed 2 years ago by
As it seems, there will be a new ticket on cached methods soon, because of the sad fact that removing a cython source file from the Sage library does not only result in problems with introspection of cached methods, but the cached methods can't even be called. So, I suppose the design flaw can be addressed there, too.
comment:183 in reply to: ↑ 182 ; follow-up: ↓ 184 Changed 2 years ago by
Replying to SimonKing:
As it seems, there will be a new ticket on cached methods soon, because of the sad fact that removing a cython source file from the Sage library does not only result in problems with introspection of cached methods, but the cached methods can't even be called. So, I suppose the design flaw can be addressed there, too.
Unless #17814 really requires major refactoring anyway, I wouldn't do it on the same ticket.
Also, I certainly don't want to force you to "fix" this. It works as it is.
comment:184 in reply to: ↑ 183 Changed 2 years ago by
comment:185 Changed 2 years ago by
Hm. Fixing sageinspect won't be easy. I currently have absolutely no clue how to read off the number of arguments (or even the names of the arguments) of a function that is defined in a Cython file. Those functions don't seem to have any attributes holding useful information.
Has someone else an idea? If not, then I don't see what we can do. We do want a special cached method implementation for methods without arguments, and thus we need to determine the number of arguments of the to-be-wrapped method. If that doesn't work without reading the sources, what could we possibly do?
comment:186 Changed 15 months ago by
What's the purpose of this opaque block of code?
if args: lenargs = len(args) nargs = self._argument_fixer._nargs if self._inst_in_key: if lenargs>=nargs: k = (self._instance,(args,())) else: k = (self._instance,(<tuple>args+(<tuple>self._argument_fixer._default_tuple)[-nargs+lenargs:],())) else: if lenargs>=nargs: k = (args,()) else: k = (<tuple>args+(<tuple>self._argument_fixer._default_tuple)[-nargs+lenargs:],())
The reason is as follows (compare #8611):
The cached method f has a getter method, that returns a
CachedMethodCaller
and tries to assign it to O as an attribute. That assignment fails. Hence, whenever f is called again, a new instance of theCachedMethodCaller
is created. Note that before #8611, that was always the case (not very efficient).Moreover, the cached method would try to cache its return values in a dictionary assigned to O - again, it fails. So, caching can not work.
My suggestion is as follows.
We want, in particular, that caching works for the base classes Element and Parent. I propose to provide them with a public cdef method
__cached_methods
(a dictionary), that is used by the getter method of the cached method to store the resultingCachedMethodCaller
, if storing it as an attribute fails.Concerning the cache for storing the return values of f: It can not be stored in a dict as an attribute of O. But by #8611, there is a dict O.f.cache that is used for storing anyway.
So, in a nutshell, it simply works (and I already have a patch that only remains to be documented).
I tried to extend that approach to
SageObject
(from which both Parent and Element inherit), but providingSageObject
with cdef attributes will not work, since in some places there is a double inheritance, e.g., fromSageObject
andlist
.