PEP 683 – Immortal Objects, Using a Fixed Refcount
- Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com>, Eddie Elizondo <eduardo.elizondorueda at gmail.com>
- Discourse thread
- Standards Track
- 16-Feb-2022, 19-Feb-2022, 28-Feb-2022, 12-Aug-2022
- Discourse message
Table of Contents
- PEP Acceptance Conditions
- Public Refcount Details
- Immortal Mutable Objects
- Implicitly Immortal Objects
- Un-Immortalizing Objects
- Affected API
- Immortal Global Objects
- Object Cleanup
- Performance Regression Mitigations
- Solutions for Accidental De-Immortalization
- Reference Implementation
- Open Issues
PEP Acceptance Conditions
The PEP was accepted with conditions:
- we must apply the primary proposal
in Solutions for Accidental De-Immortalization
(reset the immortal refcount in
- types without this may not be immortalized (in CPython’s code)
- the PEP must be updated with final benchmark results once the implmentation is finalized
- we will have one last round of discussion about those results at that point
Currently the CPython runtime maintains a small amount of mutable state in the allocated memory of each object. Because of this, otherwise immutable objects are actually mutable. This can have a large negative impact on CPU and memory performance, especially for approaches to increasing Python’s scalability.
This proposal mandates that, internally, CPython will support marking an object as one for which that runtime state will no longer change. Consequently, such an object’s refcount will never reach 0, and thus the object will never be cleaned up (except when the runtime knows it’s safe to do so, like during runtime finalization). We call these objects “immortal”. (Normally, only a relatively small number of internal objects will ever be immortal.) The fundamental improvement here is that now an object can be truly immutable.
Object immortality is meant to be an internal-only feature, so this proposal does not include any changes to public API or behavior (with one exception). As usual, we may still add some private (yet publicly accessible) API to do things like immortalize an object or tell if one is immortal. Any effort to expose this feature to users would need to be proposed separately.
There is one exception to “no change in behavior”: refcounting semantics for immortal objects will differ in some cases from user expectations. This exception, and the solution, are discussed below.
Most of this PEP focuses on an internal implementation that satisfies the above mandate. However, those implementation details are not meant to be strictly proscriptive. Instead, at the least they are included to help illustrate the technical considerations required by the mandate. The actual implementation may deviate somewhat as long as it satisfies the constraints outlined below. Furthermore, the acceptability of any specific implementation detail described below does not depend on the status of this PEP, unless explicitly specified.
For example, the particular details of:
- how to mark something as immortal
- how to recognize something as immortal
- which subset of functionally immortal objects are marked as immortal
- which memory-management activities are skipped or modified for immortal objects
are not only CPython-specific but are also private implementation details that are expected to change in subsequent versions.
Here’s a high-level look at the implementation:
If an object’s refcount matches a very specific value (defined below) then that object is treated as immortal. The CPython C-API and runtime will not modify the refcount (or other runtime state) of an immortal object. The runtime will now be explicitly responsible for deallocating all immortal objects during finalization, unless statically allocated. (See Object Cleanup below.)
Aside from the change to refcounting semantics, there is one other possible negative impact to consider. The threshold for an “acceptable” performance penalty for immortal objects is 2% (the consensus at the 2022 Language Summit). A naive implementation of the approach described below makes CPython roughly 4% slower. However, the implementation is ~performance-neutral~ once known mitigations are applied.
TODO: Update the performance impact for the latest branch (both for GCC and for clang).
As noted above, currently all objects are effectively mutable. That
includes “immutable” objects like
str instances. This is because
every object’s refcount is frequently modified as the object is used
during execution. This is especially significant for a number of
commonly used global (builtin) objects, e.g.
None. Such objects
are used a lot, both in Python code and internally. That adds up to
a consistent high volume of refcount changes.
The effective mutability of all Python objects has a concrete impact on parts of the Python community, e.g. projects that aim for scalability like Instagram or the effort to make the GIL per-interpreter. Below we describe several ways in which refcount modification has a real negative effect on such projects. None of that would happen for objects that are truly immutable.
Reducing CPU Cache Invalidation
Every modification of a refcount causes the corresponding CPU cache line to be invalidated. This has a number of effects.
For one, the write must be propagated to other cache levels and to main memory. This has small effect on all Python programs. Immortal objects would provide a slight relief in that regard.
On top of that, multi-core applications pay a price. If two threads
(running simultaneously on distinct cores) are interacting with the
same object (e.g.
None) then they will end up invalidating each
other’s caches with each incref and decref. This is true even for
otherwise immutable objects like
CPython’s GIL helps reduce this effect, since only one thread runs at a
time, but it doesn’t completely eliminate the penalty.
Avoiding Data Races
Speaking of multi-core, we are considering making the GIL
a per-interpreter lock, which would enable true multi-core parallelism.
Among other things, the GIL currently protects against races between
multiple concurrent threads that may incref or decref the same object.
Without a shared GIL, two running interpreters could not safely share
any objects, even otherwise immutable ones like
This means that, to have a per-interpreter GIL, each interpreter must have its own copy of every object. That includes the singletons and static types. We have a viable strategy for that but it will require a meaningful amount of extra effort and extra complexity.
The alternative is to ensure that all shared objects are truly immutable. There would be no races because there would be no modification. This is something that the immortality proposed here would enable for otherwise immutable objects. With immortal objects, support for a per-interpreter GIL becomes much simpler.
For some applications it makes sense to get the application into a desired initial state and then fork the process for each worker. This can result in a large performance improvement, especially memory usage. Several enterprise Python users (e.g. Instagram, YouTube) have taken advantage of this. However, the above refcount semantics drastically reduce the benefits and have led to some sub-optimal workarounds.
Also note that “fork” isn’t the only operating system mechanism
that uses copy-on-write semantics. Another example is
Any such utility will potentially benefit from fewer copy-on-writes
when immortal objects are involved, when compared to using only
The proposed solution is obvious enough that both of this proposal’s authors came to the same conclusion (and implementation, more or less) independently. The Pyston project uses a similar approach. Other designs were also considered. Several possibilities have also been discussed on python-dev in past years.
- use a high bit to mark “immortal” but do not change
- add an explicit flag to objects
- implement via the type (
tp_dealloc()is a no-op)
- track via the object’s type object
- track with a separate table
Each of the above makes objects immortal, but none of them address the performance penalties from refcount modification described above.
In the case of per-interpreter GIL, the only realistic alternative
is to move all global objects into
PyInterpreterState and add
one or more lookup functions to access them. Then we’d have to
add some hacks to the C-API to preserve compatibility for the
may objects exposed there. The story is much, much simpler
with immortal objects.
Most notably, the cases described in the above examples stand to benefit greatly from immortal objects. Projects using pre-fork can drop their workarounds. For the per-interpreter GIL project, immortal objects greatly simplifies the solution for existing static types, as well as objects exposed by the public C-API.
In general, a strong immutability guarantee for objects enables Python applications to scale better, particularly in multi-process deployments. This is because they can then leverage multi-core parallelism without such a significant tradeoff in memory usage as they now have. The cases we just described, as well as those described above in Motivation, reflect this improvement.
A naive implementation shows a 4% slowdown. We have demonstrated a return to ~performance-neutral~ with a handful of basic mitigations applied. See the mitigations section below.
On the positive side, immortal objects save a significant amount of memory when used with a pre-fork model. Also, immortal objects provide opportunities for specialization in the eval loop that would improve performance.
TODO: Update the performance impact for the latest branch (both for GCC and for clang).
Ideally this internal-only feature would be completely compatible.
However, it does involve a change to refcount semantics in some cases.
Only immortal objects are affected, but this includes high-use objects
Specifically, when an immortal object is involved:
- code that inspects the refcount will see a really, really large value
- the new noop behavior may break code that:
- depends specifically on the refcount to always increment or decrement
(or have a specific value from
- relies on any specific refcount value, other than 0 or 1
- directly manipulates the refcount to store extra information there
- depends specifically on the refcount to always increment or decrement (or have a specific value from
- in 32-bit pre-3.12 Stable ABI extensions, objects may leak due to Accidental Immortality
- such extensions may crash due to Accidental De-Immortalizing
Again, those changes in behavior only apply to immortal objects, not the vast majority of objects a user will use. Furthermore, users cannot mark an object as immortal so no user-created objects will ever have that changed behavior. Users that rely on any of the changing behavior for global (builtin) objects are already in trouble. So the overall impact should be small.
Also note that code which checks for refleaks should keep working fine, unless it checks for hard-coded small values relative to some immortal object. The problems noticed by Pyston shouldn’t apply here since we do not modify the refcount.
See Public Refcount Details below for further discussion.
Hypothetically, a non-immortal object could be incref’ed so much that it reaches the magic value needed to be considered immortal. That means it would never be decref’ed all the way back to 0, so it would accidentally leak (never be cleaned up).
With 64-bit refcounts, this accidental scenario is so unlikely that
we need not worry. Even if done deliberately by using
in a tight loop and each iteration only took 1 CPU cycle, it would take
2^60 cycles (if the immortal bit were 2^60). At a fast 5 GHz that would
still take nearly 250,000,000 seconds (over 2,500 days)!
Also note that it is doubly unlikely to be a problem because it wouldn’t matter until the refcount would have gotten back to 0 and the object cleaned up. So any object that hit that magic “immortal” refcount value would have to be decref’ed that many times again before the change in behavior would be noticed.
Again, the only realistic way that the magic refcount would be reached
(and then reversed) is if it were done deliberately. (Of course, the
same thing could be done efficiently using
that would be even less of an accident.) At that point we don’t
consider it a concern of this proposal.
On builds with much smaller maximum refcounts, like 32-bit platforms, the consequences aren’t so obvious. Let’s say the magic refcount were 2^30. Using the same specs as above, it would take roughly 4 seconds to accidentally immortalize an object. Under reasonable conditions, it is still highly unlikely that an object be accidentally immortalized. It would have to meet these criteria:
- targeting a non-immortal object (so not one of the high-use builtins)
- the extension increfs without a corresponding decref (e.g. returns from a function or method)
- no other code decrefs the object in the meantime
Even at a much less frequent rate it would not take long to reach accidental immortality (on 32-bit). However, then it would have to run through the same number of (now noop-ing) decrefs before that one object would be effectively leaking. This is highly unlikely, especially because the calculations assume no decrefs.
Furthermore, this isn’t all that different from how such 32-bit extensions can already incref an object past 2^31 and turn the refcount negative. If that were an actual problem then we would have heard about it.
Between all of the above cases, the proposal doesn’t consider accidental immortality a problem.
The implementation approach described in this PEP is compatible
with extensions compiled to the stable ABI (with the exception
of Accidental Immortality and Accidental De-Immortalizing).
Due to the nature of the stable ABI, unfortunately, such extensions
use versions of
Py_INCREF(), etc. that directly modify the object’s
ob_refcnt field. This will invalidate all the performance benefits
of immortal objects.
However, we do ensure that immortal objects (mostly) stay immortal in that situation. We set the initial refcount of immortal objects to a value for which we can identify the object as immortal and which continues to do so even if the refcount is modified by an extension. (For example, suppose we used one of the high refcount bits to indicate that an object was immortal. We would set the initial refcount to a higher value that still matches the bit, like halfway to the next bit. See _Py_IMMORTAL_REFCNT.) At worst, objects in that situation would feel the effects described in the Motivation section. Even then the overall impact is unlikely to be significant.
32-bit builds of older stable ABI extensions can take Accidental Immortality to the next level.
Hypothetically, such an extension could incref an object to a value on the next highest bit above the magic refcount value. For example, if the magic value were 2^30 and the initial immortal refcount were thus 2^30 + 2^29 then it would take 2^29 increfs by the extension to reach a value of 2^31, making the object non-immortal. (Of course, a refcount that high would probably already cause a crash, regardless of immortal objects.)
The more problematic case is where such a 32-bit stable ABI extension
goes crazy decref’ing an already immortal object. Continuing with the
above example, it would take 2^29 asymmetric decrefs to drop below the
magic immortal refcount value. So an object like
None could be
made mortal and subject to decref. That still wouldn’t be a problem
until somehow the decrefs continue on that object until it reaches 0.
For statically allocated immortal objects, like
None, the extension
would crash the process if it tried to dealloc the object. For any
other immortal objects, the dealloc might be okay. However, there
might be runtime code expecting the formerly-immortal object to be
around forever. That code would probably crash.
Again, the likelihood of this happening is extremely small, even on 32-bit builds. It would require roughly a billion decrefs on that one object without a corresponding incref. The most likely scenario is the following:
A “new” reference to
None is returned by many functions and methods.
Unlike with non-immortal objects, the 3.12 runtime will basically never
None before giving it to the extension. However, the
extension will decref it when done with it (unless it returns it).
Each time that exchange happens with the one object, we get one step
closer to a crash.
How realistic is it that some form of that exchange (with a single object) will happen a billion times in the lifetime of a Python process on 32-bit? If it is a problem, how could it be addressed?
As to how realistic, the answer isn’t clear currently. However, the mitigation is simple enough that we can safely proceed under the assumption that it would not be a problem.
We look at possible solutions later on.
Alternate Python Implementations
This proposal is CPython-specific. However, it does relate to the behavior of the C-API, which may affect other Python implementations. Consequently, the effect of changed behavior described in Backward Compatibility above also applies here (e.g. if another implementation is tightly coupled to specific refcount values, other than 0, or on exactly how refcounts change, then they may impacted).
This feature has no known impact on security.
This is not a complex feature so it should not cause much mental overhead for maintainers. The basic implementation doesn’t touch much code so it should have much impact on maintainability. There may be some extra complexity due to performance penalty mitigation. However, that should be limited to where we immortalize all objects post-init and later explicitly deallocate them during runtime finalization. The code for this should be relatively concentrated.
The approach involves these fundamental changes:
- add _Py_IMMORTAL_REFCNT (the magic value) to the internal C-API
Py_DECREF()to no-op for objects that match the magic refcount
- do the same for any other API that modifies the refcount
- stop modifying
PyGC_Headfor immortal GC objects (“containers”)
- ensure that all immortal objects are cleaned up during runtime finalization
Then setting any object’s refcount to
makes it immortal.
(There are other minor, internal changes which are not described here.)
In the following sub-sections we dive into the most significant details. First we will cover some conceptual topics, followed by more concrete aspects like specific affected APIs.
Public Refcount Details
In Backward Compatibility we introduced possible ways that user code might be broken by the change in this proposal. Any contributing misunderstanding by users is likely due in large part to the names of the refcount-related API and to how the documentation explains those API (and refcounting in general).
Between the names and the docs, we can clearly see answers to the following questions:
- what behavior do users expect?
- what guarantees do we make?
- do we indicate how to interpret the refcount value they receive?
- what are the use cases under which a user would set an object’s refcount to a specific value?
- are users setting the refcount of objects they did not create?
As part of this proposal, we must make sure that users can clearly understand on which parts of the refcount behavior they can rely and which are considered implementation details. Specifically, they should use the existing public refcount-related API and the only refcount values with any meaning are 0 and 1. (Some code relies on 1 as an indicator that the object can be safely modified.) All other values are considered “not 0 or 1”.
This information will be clarified in the documentation.
Arguably, the existing refcount-related API should be modified to reflect what we want users to expect. Something like the following:
Py_ACQUIRE_REF()(or only support
However, such a change is not a part of this proposal. It is included here to demonstrate the tighter focus for user expectations that would benefit this change.
- ensure that otherwise immutable objects can be truly immutable
- minimize performance penalty for normal Python use cases
- be careful when immortalizing objects that we don’t actually expect to persist until runtime finalization.
- be careful when immortalizing objects that are not otherwise immutable
__del__and weakrefs must continue working properly
Regarding “truly” immutable objects, this PEP doesn’t impact the
effective immutability of any objects, other than the per-object
runtime state (e.g. refcount). So whether or not some immortal object
is truly (or even effectively) immutable can only be settled separately
from this proposal. For example, str objects are generally considered
PyUnicodeObject holds some lazily cached data. This
PEP has no influence on how that state affects str immutability.
Immortal Mutable Objects
Any object can be marked as immortal. We do not propose any restrictions or checks. However, in practice the value of making an object immortal relates to its mutability and depends on the likelihood it would be used for a sufficient portion of the application’s lifetime. Marking a mutable object as immortal can make sense in some situations.
Many of the use cases for immortal objects center on immutability, so that threads can safely and efficiently share such objects without locking. For this reason a mutable object, like a dict or list, would never be shared (and thus no immortality). However, immortality may be appropriate if there is sufficient guarantee that the normally mutable object won’t actually be modified.
On the other hand, some mutable objects will never be shared between
threads (at least not without a lock like the GIL). In some cases it
may be practical to make some of those immortal too. For example,
sys.modules is a per-interpreter dict that we do not expect to
ever get freed until the corresponding interpreter is finalized
(assuming it isn’t replaced). By making it immortal, we would
no longer incur the extra overhead during incref/decref.
We explore this idea further in the mitigations section below.
Implicitly Immortal Objects
If an immortal object holds a reference to a normal (mortal) object then that held object is effectively immortal. This is because that object’s refcount can never reach 0 until the immortal object releases it.
- containers like
- objects that hold references internally like
- an object’s type (held in
Such held objects are thus implicitly immortal for as long as they are held. In practice, this should have no real consequences since it really isn’t a change in behavior. The only difference is that the immortal object (holding the reference) doesn’t ever get cleaned up.
We do not propose that such implicitly immortal objects be changed in any way. They should not be explicitly marked as immortal just because they are held by an immortal object. That would provide no advantage over doing nothing.
This proposal does not include any mechanism for taking an immortal object and returning it to a “normal” condition. Currently there is no need for such an ability.
On top of that, the obvious approach is to simply set the refcount to a small value. However, at that point there is no way in knowing which value would be safe. Ideally we’d set it to the value that it would have been if it hadn’t been made immortal. However, that value will have long been lost. Hence the complexities involved make it less likely that an object could safely be un-immortalized, even if we had a good reason to do so.
We will add two internal constants:
_Py_IMMORTAL_BIT - has the top-most available bit set (e.g. 2^62) _Py_IMMORTAL_REFCNT - has the two top-most available bits set
The actual top-most bit depends on existing uses for refcount bits, e.g. the sign bit or some GC uses. We will use the highest bit possible after consideration of existing uses.
The refcount for immortal objects will be set to
(meaning the value will be halfway between
_Py_IMMORTAL_BIT and the
value at the next highest bit). However, to check if an object is
immortal we will compare (bitwise-and) its refcount against just
The difference means that an immortal object will still be considered immortal, even if somehow its refcount were modified (e.g. by an older stable ABI extension).
Note that top two bits of the refcount are already reserved for other uses. That’s why we are using the third top-most bit.
The implementation is also open to using other values for the immortal bit, such as the sign bit or 2^31 (for saturated refcounts on 64-bit).
API that will now ignore immortal objects:
API that exposes refcounts (unchanged but may now return large values):
_Py_RefTotal, and consequently
will not be affected.)
TODO: clarify the status of
Also, immortal objects will not participate in GC.
Immortal Global Objects
All runtime-global (builtin) objects will be made immortal. That includes the following:
- singletons (
- all static types (e.g.
- all static objects in
_PyRuntimeState.global_objects(e.g. identifiers, small ints)
The question of making the full objects actually immutable (e.g. for per-interpreter GIL) is not in the scope of this PEP.
In order to clean up all immortal objects during runtime finalization, we must keep track of them.
For GC objects (“containers”) we’ll leverage the GC’s permanent
generation by pushing all immortalized containers there. During
runtime shutdown, the strategy will be to first let the runtime try
to do its best effort of deallocating these instances normally. Most
of the module deallocation will now be handled by
pylifecycle.c:finalize_modules() where we clean up the remaining
modules as best as we can. It will change which modules are available
__del__, but that’s already explicitly undefined behavior
in the docs. Optionally, we could do some topological ordering
to guarantee that user modules will be deallocated first before
the stdlib modules. Finally, anything left over (if any) can be found
through the permanent generation GC list which we can clear
finalize_modules() is done.
For non-container objects, the tracking approach will vary on a
case-by-case basis. In nearly every case, each such object is directly
accessible on the runtime state, e.g. in a
PyInterpreterState field. We may need to add a tracking mechanism
to the runtime state for a small number of objects.
None of the cleanup will have a significant effect on performance.
Performance Regression Mitigations
In the interest of clarity, here are some of the ways we are going to try to recover some of the 4% performance we lose with the naive implementation of immortal objects.
Note that none of this section is actually part of the proposal.
at the end of runtime init, mark all objects as immortal
We can apply the concept from Immortal Mutable Objects in the pursuit of getting back some of that 4% performance we lose with the naive implementation of immortal objects. At the end of runtime init we can mark all objects as immortal and avoid the extra cost in incref/decref. We only need to worry about immutability with objects that we plan on sharing between threads without a GIL.
drop unnecessary hard-coded refcount operations
Parts of the C-API interact specifically with objects that we know
to be immortal, like
Py_RETURN_NONE. Such functions and macros
can be updated to drop any refcount operations.
specialize for immortal objects in the eval loop
There are opportunities to optimize operations in the eval loop
involving speicific known immortal objects (e.g.
general mechanism is described in PEP 659. Also see Pyston.
- mark every interned string as immortal
- mark the “interned” dict as immortal if shared else share all interned strings
- (Larry,MAL) mark all constants unmarshalled for a module as immortal
- (Larry,MAL) allocate (immutable) immortal objects in their own memory page(s)
- saturated refcounts using the 32 least-significant bits
Solutions for Accidental De-Immortalization
In the Accidental De-Immortalizing section we outlined a possible negative consequence of immortal objects. Here we look at some of the options to deal with that.
Note that we enumerate solutions here to illustrate that satisfactory options are available, rather than to dictate how the problem will be solved.
Also note the following:
- this only matters in the 32-bit stable-ABI case
- it only affects immortal objects
- there are no user-defined immortal objects, only built-in types
- most immortal objects will be statically allocated
(and thus already must fail if
- only a handful of immortal objects will be used often enough
to possibly face this problem in practice (e.g.
- the main problem to solve is crashes coming from
One fundamental observation for a solution is that we can reset
an immortal object’s refcount to
when some condition is met.
With all that in mind, a simple, yet effective, solution would be
to reset an immortal object’s refcount in
bool already have a
tp_dealloc() that calls
Py_FatalError() if triggered. The same goes for other types based
on certain conditions, like
PyUnicodeObject (depending on
In fact, the same check is important for all statically declared object.
For those types, we would instead reset the refcount. For the
remaining cases we would introduce the check. In all cases,
the overhead of the check in
tp_dealloc() should be too small
Other (less practical) solutions:
- periodically reset the refcount for immortal objects
- only do that for high-use objects
- only do it if a stable-ABI extension has been imported
- provide a runtime flag for disabling immortality
(The discussion thread has further detail.)
Regardless of the solution we end up with, we can do something else later if necessary.
TODO: Add a note indicating that the implemented solution does not affect the overall ~performance-neutral~ outcome.
The immortal objects behavior and API are internal, implementation details and will not be added to the documentation.
However, we will update the documentation to make public guarantees about refcount behavior more clear. That includes, specifically:
Py_INCREF()- change “Increment the reference count for object o.” to “Indicate taking a new reference to object o.”
Py_DECREF()- change “Decrement the reference count for object o.” to “Indicate no longer using a previously taken reference to object o.”
- similar for
Py_REFCNT()- add “The refcounts 0 and 1 have specific meanings and all others only mean code somewhere is using the object, regardless of the value. 0 means the object is not used and will be cleaned up. 1 means code holds exactly a single reference.”
Py_SET_REFCNT()- refer to
Py_REFCNT()about how values over 1 may be substituted with some over value
We may also add a note about immortal objects to the following, to help reduce any surprise users may have with the change:
Py_SET_REFCNT()(a no-op for immortal objects)
Py_REFCNT()(value may be surprisingly large)
sys.getrefcount()(value may be surprisingly large)
Other API that might benefit from such notes are currently undocumented.
We wouldn’t add such a note anywhere else (including for
Py_DECREF()) since the feature is otherwise transparent to users.
The implementation is proposed on GitHub:
- how realistic is the Accidental De-Immortalizing concern?
This was discussed in December 2021 on python-dev:
Runtime Object State
Here is the internal state that the CPython runtime keeps for each Python object:
- PyObject.ob_refcnt: the object’s refcount
- _PyGC_Head: (optional) the object’s node in a list of “GC” objects
- _PyObject_HEAD_EXTRA: (optional) the object’s node in the list of heap objects
ob_refcnt is part of the memory allocated for every object.
_PyObject_HEAD_EXTRA is allocated only if CPython was built
PyGC_Head is allocated only if the
object’s type has
Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_GC set. Typically this is only
container types (e.g.
list). Also note that
_PyObject_HEAD_EXTRA are part of
Reference Counting, with Cyclic Garbage Collection
Garbage collection is a memory management feature of some programming languages. It means objects are cleaned up (e.g. memory freed) once they are no longer used.
Refcounting is one approach to garbage collection. The language runtime tracks how many references are held to an object. When code takes ownership of a reference to an object or releases it, the runtime is notified and it increments or decrements the refcount accordingly. When the refcount reaches 0, the runtime cleans up the object.
With CPython, code must explicitly take or release references using
Py_DECREF(). These macros happen
to directly modify the object’s refcount (unfortunately, since that
causes ABI compatibility issues if we want to change our garbage
collection scheme). Also, when an object is cleaned up in CPython,
it also releases any references (and resources) it owns
(before it’s memory is freed).
Sometimes objects may be involved in reference cycles, e.g. where object A holds a reference to object B and object B holds a reference to object A. Consequently, neither object would ever be cleaned up even if no other references were held (i.e. a memory leak). The most common objects involved in cycles are containers.
CPython has dedicated machinery to deal with reference cycles, which we call the “cyclic garbage collector”, or often just “garbage collector” or “GC”. Don’t let the name confuse you. It only deals with breaking reference cycles.
See the docs for a more detailed explanation of refcounting and cyclic garbage collection:
This document is placed in the public domain or under the CC0-1.0-Universal license, whichever is more permissive.
Last modified: 2022-11-08 21:40:44 GMT