gh-115999: Make list, tuple and range iteration more thread-safe.

[Yhg1s]

Make list, tuple and range iteration more thread-safe, and actually test concurrent iteration. (This is prep work for enabling specialization of FOR_ITER in free-threaded builds.) The basic premise is:

• Iterating over a shared iterable (list, tuple or range) should be safe, not involve data races, and behave like iteration normally does.

• Using a shared iterator should not crash or involve data races, and should only produce items regular iteration would produce. It is not guaranteed to produce all items, or produce each item only once.

Providing stronger guarantees is possible for some of these iterators, but it's not always straight-forward and can significantly hamper the common case. Since iterators in general aren't shared between threads, and it's simply impossible to concurrently use many iterators (like generators), better to make sharing iterators without explicit synchronization clearly wrong.

Specific issues fixed in order to make the tests pass:

• List iteration could occasionally crash when a shared list wasn't already marked as shared when reallocated.

• Tuple iteration could occasionally crash when the iterator's reference to the tuple was cleared on exhaustion. Like with list iteration, in free-threaded builds we can't safely and efficiently clear the iterator's reference to the iterable (doing it safely would mean extra, slow refcount operations), so just keep the iterable reference around.

• Fast range iterators (for integers that fit in C longs) shared between threads would sometimes produce values past the end of the range, because the iterators use two pieces of state that we can't efficiently update atomically. Rewriting the iterators to have a single piece of state is possible, but probably means more math for each iteration and may not be worth it.

• Long range iterators (for other numbers) shared between threads would crash catastrophically in a variety of ways. This now uses a critical section. Rewriting this to be more efficient is probably possible, but since it deals with arbitrary Python objects it's difficult to get right.

There seem to be no more existing races in list_get_item_ref, so drop it from the tsan suppression list.

• Issue: Make the specializing interpreter thread-safe in --disable-gil builds #115999

[corona10]

Out of curiosity, using atomic operation is not enough for this operation?
(Maybe with _Py_TryIncref?)

[Yhg1s]

It's not enough to make this an atomic read without also making the writes in the other critical sections atomic (in addition to using TryIncrefCompare here); it's still a data race to write non-atomically even if all reads are atomic. I didn't really want to do all that work just to avoid a critical section in this function, when this isn't a particularly common or performance-sensitive function, and an uncontested critical section is probably just as fast anyway.