Hacker News Reader

Comment by j_baker | Hacker News Reader

When the GP talks about "small integers", I'm assuming he's talking about numbers between -5 and 256, which are cached ahead of time. They're never going to be garbage collected, so refcounting is largely unnecessary.

View on HN

Once again, you can't implement this without specializing every call site that invokes Py_INCREF or Py_DECREF, or in other words, "1 conditional branch per object access everywhere."

You are right, but cost is probably very low. The conditionality of the branch doesn't matter if it's correctly predicted. On a modern processor, a correctly predicted branch-not-taken is usually indistinguishable from free unless you're already front-end constrained, which is rare for an interpreter. A correctly predicted branch-taken costs the same as a unconditional branch.

This is essentially why a JIT can be almost as fast as compiled code even when including the necessary guards. It's only when the branches become unpredictable that the costs become real. The trick with fast interpreted code is threading the execution so that the hardware is able to predict the branches accurately, but this is largely independent of the number of conditional branches.

Right, so the question becomes whether a branch mispredict is cheaper than simply refcounting an object that already lives in L1 cache (by virtue of having any of its words accessed). For Intel Sandy Bridge, this is 14-18 cycles for the mispredict, or ~4+4 for the L1 word read/write. Now the question becomes how often that mispredict will occur, and there's no real way to measure this short of an implementation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com