Daniel Colascione <dan...@google.com> added the comment: On Oct 1, 2017 10:19 AM, "Raymond Hettinger" <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote:
Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> added the comment: > Compare-and-exchange is sufficient for avoiding the GIL contention > I describe above. If Python objects are involved, it is more complicated than you suggest. Python objects are not involved. We're talking about memory manipulation on the same level as ctypes.memmove. Possibly, multiprocessing can offer a shared counter that creates integer objects on demand and that offers guaranteed atomic increments and decrements (as semaphores) do. Why would it, when ctypes can provide generic functionality? > one of the nice things about multiprocessing is avoiding > GIL-introduced latency! The primary way it achieves this benefit is by avoiding shared state altogether. Well, yes, but sometimes shared state is unavoidable, and it's best to manipulate it as efficiently as possible. ---------- nosy: +davin, pitrou, rhettinger _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue31654> _______________________________________ ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue31654> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
