Alternative attempt at fixing memleak by being explicit about copies#2722
Closed
filmor wants to merge 3 commits into
Closed
Alternative attempt at fixing memleak by being explicit about copies#2722filmor wants to merge 3 commits into
filmor wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
MethodBinding and OverloadMapper held PyObject `target` references that were not disposed during tp_clear, leaving Python-side refcount drops to wait on the multi-hop .NET finalizer chain. They also shared the same C# PyObject instance across mp_subscript/Overloads paths, so freeing one could free the underlying Python object out from under the others. - ExtensionType: add virtual OnClear() hook called from tp_clear before the GCHandle is released, letting subclasses eagerly drop owned Python references. - MethodBinding/OverloadMapper: override OnClear to dispose `target`. (`targetType` is intentionally not disposed since Python types are long-lived and tracked by other caches.) - Take an independent INCREF'd PyObject copy at every site that hands a shared target into a new MethodBinding or OverloadMapper, so each wrapper owns its own reference. Result: the three _does_not_leak_memory tests drop from ~485 MB delta to ~10 KB delta on Python 3.14.
The previous 90% threshold (0.9 MB/iter against a 1 MB allocation) documented the issue but did not reproduce it: master leaks ~600-765 KB/iter, which the 0.9 MB threshold accepts as passing. Drop the threshold to 10% (104 KB/iter). On the 2026-05-09 verification run with Python 3.14 GIL on linux-aarch64: Without fix (master): ~572-765 KB/iter (FAIL) With fix (this branch): ~-500 B/iter (PASS) Margin is roughly 6x in either direction across .NET 8 and .NET 10, so the threshold cleanly separates buggy from fixed states without being sensitive to GC noise.
lostmsu
reviewed
May 11, 2026
| Finalizer.Instance.ThrottledCollect(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public PyObject Copy() => new(this); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The name of this function is too generic and therefore misleading
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How is it misleading? This is exactly what it does (at least in Python terms). The current behaviour, being able to freely pass the object around, is the misleading thing IMO.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It does not make a copy of an object. It makes a separate living reference to it.
603a5d9 to
ec0a494
Compare
- Handle the `PyType` reference in `OverloadMapper` and `MethodBinding` in the same way as the object reference - Unconditionally store the `PyType` of the object - Introduce `NewReference` helper function for the object and type passing - Fix the remaining missing reference count bump for the type (`MethodObject`) - As the count is now correct, `Dispose` the type as well
e205ad0 to
11bebe4
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.