[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > >>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>Having memory protection is superior to not having it--OS designers >>>spent years implementing it, why would you toss out a fair chunk of it? >>> Being explicit about what you're sharing is generally better than not. >> >>Part of the win of programming in Python instead of C is having the >>language do memory management for you--no more null pointers >>dereferences or malloc/free errors. Using shared memory puts all that >>squarely back in your lap. > > > Huh? Why couldn't you use garbage collection with objects allocated in > shm? The worst theoretical case is about the same programatically as > having garbage collected objects in a multithreaded program. > > Python doesn't actually support that as of yet, but it could. In the > interim, if the memory you're sharing is array-like then you can > already take full advantage of multiprocess solutions in Python. > Ah, right. So then we end up with processes that have to suspend because they can't collect garbage? "Could" covers a multitude of sins, and distributed garbage collection across shard memory is by no means a trivial problem.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
