Mouse <u...@ll.mit.edu> added the comment:
Also, adding `p.join()` immediately after `p.start()` in my sample code showed this timing: ``` $ time python3.8 multi1.py worker 0 done, got 100 numbers worker 1 done, got 0 numbers worker 2 done, got 0 numbers worker 3 done, got 0 numbers real 0m2.342s user 0m0.227s sys 0m0.111s $ ``` Setting instead start to `fork` showed this timing: ``` $ time python3.8 multi1.py worker 2 done, got 25 numbers worker 0 done, got 25 numbers worker 1 done, got 25 numbers worker 3 done, got 25 numbers real 0m0.537s user 0m0.064s sys 0m0.040s $ ``` The proposed fix is roughly four times slower, compared to reverting start to `fork`. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue33725> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
