In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bjoern Schliessmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Justin T. wrote:
>
>> The detrimental effects of the GIL have been discussed several
>> times and nobody has ever done anything about it.
>
>Also it has been discussed that dropping the GIL concept requires
>very fine locking mechanisms inside the interpreter to keep data
>serialised. The overhead managing those fine ones properly is not
>at all negligible, and I think it's more than managing GIL.
>
>> The truth is that the future (and present reality) of almost every
>> form of computing is multi-core,
>
>Is it? 8)
.
.
.
I reinforce some of these points slightly:
A. An effective change to the GIL impacts not just
Python in the sense of the Reference Manual, but
also all its extensions. That has the potential
to be a big, big cost; and
B. At least part of the attention given multi-core
processors--or, perhaps more accurately, the
claims that multi-cores deserve threading re-
writes--smells like vendor manipulation.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
