Potential regression induced by "Cython guard against [c|m|re]alloc failures"

[DeaMariaLeon]

PR #57705

If it is expected please ignore this issue.
Please be aware that the server is slow to respond some times.

@WillAyd

commit "114a84d8a0eee8fb93a4d2d701a2a6e62ebcf6d2": {
"groupby.Cumulative.time_frame_transform (Python) with dtype='Float64', method='cummax', with_nans=True": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb944a14b793780003322ee823635...065fb8e49664747b8000f70e4ec84ae6",
"groupby.Cumulative.time_frame_transform (Python) with dtype='Int64', method='cummin', with_nans=True": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb944ae8474e58000b3cec8275f57...065fb8e498ce7594800008071c2d8038",
"groupby.Cumulative.time_frame_transform (Python) with dtype='Int64', method='cummin', with_nans=False": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb944b2b47a138000cb49180477b4...065fb8e499487a9e8000b44250789920",
"algos.isin.IsInLongSeriesLookUpDominates.time_isin (Python) with MaxNumber=1000, dtype='Float64', series_type='random_misses'": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb9407ebe716e8000ed2fe62f5b83...065fb8e1b287741080003a30c54d529f",
"groupby.Cumulative.time_frame_transform (Python) with dtype='int64', method='cummin', with_nans=False": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb94491a376d180006f30866e9cb7...065fb8e4939b78d480008873c990c076",
"groupby.Cumulative.time_frame_transform (Python) with dtype='Int64', method='cummax', with_nans=False": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb944bc017c0780002137a5469d07...065fb8e49a7476d9800097b740074116",
"algorithms.Factorize.time_factorize (Python) with dtype='boolean', sort=True, unique=False": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb9400e25709d8000634602d20fa9...065fb8e14c1270388000c8005022c82f",
"algos.isin.IsInLongSeriesLookUpDominates.time_isin (Python) with MaxNumber=1000, dtype='float64', series_type='random_misses'": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb9406aa0734d8000d932d3e79d24...065fb8e1a1037615800024333e87bbf7",
"groupby.Cumulative.time_frame_transform (Python) with dtype='Float64', method='cummin', with_nans=True": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb9449c0075d7800006671aaa142b...065fb8e4954a7e678000d0cf25e62d15",
"groupby.GroupByCythonAggEaDtypes.time_frame_agg (Python) with dtype='Int32', method='any'": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb945a1cb705f800027e9e412ca99...065fb8e4baf27ba58000e2dcb9c6c91c",
"algos.isin.IsinWithArange.time_isin (Python) with M=8000, dtype=<class 'numpy.float64'>, offset_factor=-2": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb940c55774118000016187a81f4d...065fb8e1f156773380009660ce668fd7",
"algos.isin.IsInLongSeriesLookUpDominates.time_isin (Python) with MaxNumber=1000, dtype='float64', series_type='monotone_misses'": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb9406baf7c048000e4b240c9b233...065fb8e1a200710f8000cf630f8dcec9",
"groupby.GroupByCythonAggEaDtypes.time_frame_agg (Python) with dtype='Float64', method='first'": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb94566c67d2f80005785dda0523a...065fb8e4acf773d98000663b6949b9a7",
"groupby.Cumulative.time_frame_transform (Python) with dtype='float64', method='cummax', with_nans=False": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb944863a73328000100ab11e015f...065fb8e491f073228000be1a0dcb0813",
"groupby.Cumulative.time_frame_transform (Python) with dtype='Int64', method='cummax', with_nans=True": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb944b887736180002dd51b13dfc4...065fb8e499e779438000356086562483",
"groupby.Cumulative.time_frame_transform (Python) with dtype='Float64', method='cummax', with_nans=False": "http://57.128.112.95:5000/compare/benchmarks/065fb944a4cc74dd80007276e8078ead...065fb8e496fc7c4d80002e67128bc5cf"
}

[WillAyd]

Hmm that's interesting. OK thanks - definitely unexpected. Will take a look later

[WillAyd]

I checked the generated code and it generates things like:

if (unlikely(ptr == NULL)) {
    ...  // raise MemoryError
}

So I don't think this can be any more efficient. I noticed also some of the benchmarks were not really regressions when compared to values a few months back:

So I don't think there is much to do here

[rhshadrach]

@WillAyd - only question I have is how many times are these checks hit in the test? If it's an inner loop that's hit a few hundred times then a 2ms regression makes sense. But if they are just hit a few times per test run then perhaps more investigation is warranted. I'll come back and see if I can find out in a few days.

[WillAyd]

These all come after malloc calls. I don't believe any are done in a tight loop, but if they were the surprising part is that the malloc itself is where you would expect to see a bottleneck, not the subsequent call to check if malloc failed

[rhshadrach]

Interesting - I'm not seeing any of the checks added in #57705 hit by

groupby.Cumulative.time_frame_transform (Python) with dtype='Float64', method='cummax', with_nans=True

Same with

algos.isin.IsInLongSeriesLookUpDominates.time_isin (Python) with MaxNumber=1000, dtype='Float64', series_type='random_misses'