On Sep 13, 1:36 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Prateek wrote: > > Hi, > > > Recently there was some talk on removing the GIL and even the BDFL has > > written a blog post on it. > > I was trying to come up with a scalable and backwards compatible > > approach for how to do it. > > > I've put my thoughts up in a blog post - and I'd really like to hear > > what the community thinks of it. > > Mainly it revolves around dedicating one core for executing > > synchronized code and doing context switches instead of acquiring/ > > releasing locks. > > Where is the gain? Having just one core doesn't give you true parallelism - > which is the main reason behind the cries for a GIL-less Python. > > Diez
Diez, I was talking of dedicating one core for synchronized code. In the case of a threaded app on two cores, one core would be dedicated to synchronized code and the other would run non-sync code (effectively behaving like a single threaded machine). However, on machines with n cores where n > 2 cores, we would have n-1 cores available to run code in parallel. Prateek -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
