On Feb 14, 3:24 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Feb 13, 9:07 pm, Maric Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've heard of a bunch of arguments to defend python's choice of GIL, but I'm > > not quite sure of their technical background, nor what is really important > > and what is not. These discussions often end in a prudent "python has made a > > choice among others"... which is not really convincing. > > Well, INAG (I'm not a Guru), but we recently had training from a Guru. > When we brought up this question, his response was fairly simple. > Paraphrased for inaccuracy: > > "Some time back, a group did remove the GIL from the python core, and > implemented locks on the core code to make it threadsafe. Well, the > problem was that while it worked, the necessary locks it made single > threaded code take significantly longer to execute." > > He then proceeded to show us how to achieve the same effect > (multithreading python for use on multi-core computers) using popen2 > and stdio pipes. > Hmm. I wonder whether it would be possible to have a pair of python cores, one for single-threaded code (no locks necessary) and the other for multi-threaded code. When the Python program went from single- threaded to multi-threaded or multi-threaded to single-threaded there would be a switch from one core to the other.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
