A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-November/093517.html below:

[Python-Dev] Reworking the GIL

[Python-Dev] Reworking the GIL [Python-Dev] Reworking the GILAntoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Sun Nov 1 23:27:35 CET 2009
Christian Heimes <lists <at> cheimes.de> writes:
> 
> +1 from me. I trust you like Brett does.
> 
> How much work would it cost to make your patch optional at compile time?

Quite a bit, because it changes the logic for processing asynchronous pending
calls (signals) and asynchronous exceptions in the eval loop. The #defines would
get quite convoluted, I think; I'd prefer not to do that.

> For what it's worth we could compare your work on different machines and
> on different platforms before it gets enabled by default. Can you
> imagine scenarios where your implementation might be slower than the
> current GIL implementation?

I don't really think so. The GIL is taken and released much more predictably
than it was before. The thing that might be worth checking is a workload with
many threads (say 50 or 100). Does anyone have that?

Regards

Antoine.


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4