On Monday, 8 January 2024 07:52:04 EET Oğuzhan Gedikli wrote: > Hello Jim, > I am sending the code you see above that I wrote before as an example. If > you enable the time.sleep(2) commands, you will see that the 'Total Switch > Time' takes about 2.2 seconds (this is what I observed). This brings me to > the point that if the processor had performed the operation serially it > should have taken more than 4 seconds, but instead it took '2 + switch > time'. In fact, if you look at it, the code is played in parallel. The > problem starts here: When I comment on the time.sleep(2) commands, and > leave only the switch commands, my observation is that it takes about 200 > ms and this process takes place serially. Somehow, the SDRs lock the > processor and the other one does not start until the process of one is > finished. I will try this without the 'Usb Hub', in fact, if you look, it > can actually serialize the process.
Python multithreading does not have real parallelism. See this excellent presentation, pages 9 and 10: https://dabeaz.com/python/UnderstandingGIL.pdf With Python you need multiprocessing to achieve true parallelism, however that introduces other problems like overhead and sharing state between interpreter instances. Adrian
