> "Why?" is baffling to me: how could they possibly participate in a cycle?
If the type object is a heap type (by default mutable), someone could just add a reference directly to it that makes it being in a cycle with the instance. Even if that's not the case, IIRC, as the type refers to the module and the module to the globals, is enough to place an instance of the type in something reachable from the globals of the same module where the type object lives to get a cycle involving the type object and the instance. On Thu, 27 May 2021, 19:27 Tim Peters, <tim.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: > [Tim] > >> But I think "waste of time" is the worst of it. Participating in > >> cyclic gc does nothing to delay refcounting from recycling objects > >> ASAP. gc only reclaims objects that are reachable only from dead > >> cycles; everything else in CPython is reclaimed the instant its > >> refcount falls to 0, and that's so regardless of whether it > >> participates in cyclic gc. > > [Marc-Andre Lemburg] > > Oh, thanks for the explanation. I was under the impression that > > GC-aware objects are added to a GC pool for processing at the > > next GC run. > > At creation, they're added to "the youngest GC generation", which is a > doubly-linked list. It's doubly-linked precisely so (among other > things ;-) ) they can be removed from the youngest generation in O(1) > time if refcounting destroys them before the next GC run. GC only > looks at the objects still in the doubly-linked list when it runs. The > only effect it has on refcounting is to increase the time it takes > refcounting to do reclamation (refcounting has to adjust the > double-linked list pointers, to reflect that the object no longer > exists). > > > If that's not the case in general -- only if they > > are part of dead cycles -- then it's merely wasting time on > > traversing known dead ends... and developer time for adding the > > unnecessary logic ;-) > > And some conceptual confusion. For example, I noted in a later message > that we've apparently added a tp_traverse to regexp pattern objects. > "Why?" is baffling to me: how could they possibly participate in a > cycle? My best guess is that there's no need for them to participate > in cyclic gc at all, despite that - sure - they have a type pointer. >
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/MEAK2OGPAERT62Y6LF2UXJ4YLRSLDIEJ/ Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
