Aahz, 01.03.2011 03:02:
Carl Banks wrote:
The real reason they never replaced the GIL is that fine-grained
locking is expensive with reference counting. The only way the cost
of finer-grained locking would be acceptable, then, is if they got rid
of the reference counting altogether, and that was considered too
drastic a change.
...especially given CPython's goal of easy integration with C libraries.
+1, the GIL is much more rarely a problem than some people want to make it
appear. Especially those who don't understand why it's there, or who fail
to notice that threading is not the only way to do parallel processing (and
certainly not the easiest either).
Stefan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
