update `extract_argument` to use Bound APIs

[davidhewitt]

Builds upon #3681 to move our internal argument extraction mechanisms off the GIL Pool.

Only the last commit is new, and I don't think this is worth reviewing right until #3681 is in, after which I'll rebase and tidy this a bit further. Pushing now purely because I think this should hopefully demonstrate a tantalising performance speedup which we're so close to merging! 😂

[codspeed-hq[bot]]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #3708 will improve performances by 13.02%

_{Comparing davidhewitt:extract-arg2 (101563c) with main (a15e4b1)}

Summary

⚡ 2 improvements ✅ 65 untouched benchmarks

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	main	davidhewitt:extract-arg2	Change
⚡	test_simple_args_kwargs_rs	35.3 µs	31.9 µs	+10.64%
⚡	test_simple_kwargs_rs	35 µs	31 µs	+13.02%

[davidhewitt]

Hmm I'll investigate later why this hasn't yielded the speedup I've seen in #3606, there's likely some other part I need to merge first...

[davidhewitt]

Ah, I think it's PyDict::new_bound which is missing, I'll open a PR for that once we've merged the feature proposed in #3707

[davidhewitt]

The performance regressions with the ordered_X benchmarks are genuine and look like they're caused because part of the proc macros go through &PyCell<T> GIL Ref machinery, and the compatibility implementation of FromPyObject::extract_bound is hurting this.

Probably the right approach is to get this PR merged (well, needs #3784 reviewed and merged first) and also #3792. Then I think there will be enough pieces in place to deal with updating the proc macro internals in a follow-up.

[davidhewitt]

This is getting closer to being reviewable, but I think first it was worth splitting out #3801 and #3802.

[davidhewitt]

Thanks for the reviews! I've removed the PyArg newtype following #3858, which has made this implementation a fair bit nicer on the macro side. I'll try to find time to tidy the rest up later.

[davidhewitt]

Thanks both, I'll aim to tidy this up tomorrow 👍

[davidhewitt]

Thanks both, think we're finally there on this one!

[MarshalX]

Hmm I'll investigate later why this hasn't yielded the speedup I've seen in #3606, there's likely some other part I need to merge first...

What is the latest result btw?

[davidhewitt]

https://github.com/PyO3/pyo3/pull/3708#issuecomment-1871521345, but I think it's quite likely that parts of the speedup already got merged now, given how many times this got split up.

I will probably analyze again some time and see if there's any further tricks to apply here, but for now I think this is good.