Bryan Olson wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> writes: >>> An object's __dict__ slot is *not* mutable; thus we could gain some >>> efficiency by protecting the object and its dict with the same lock. I >>> do not see a major win in Mr. Banks' point that we do not need to lock >>> the object, just its dict. >> >> If the dict contents don't change often, maybe we could use an >> STM-like approach to eliminate locks when reading. That would of >> course require rework to just about every C function that accesses >> Python objects. > > I'm a fan of lock-free data structure and software transactional memory, > but I'm also a realist. Heck, I'm one of this group's outspoken > advocates of threaded architectures. Theoretical breakthroughs will > happen, but in real world of today, threads are great but GIL-less > Python is a loser. > > Wherever Python is going, let's recognize that a scripting language that > rocks is better than any other kind of language that sucks. > > Guido, IIRC, has said that he's against any GIL-removal policy that lowers performance on single-processor systems. Personally I'd be happy if there were an *alternative* multi-processor implementation that was slower for single-processor architectures and faster for multi-processor, but I'm not about to start developing it.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
