Donn Cave wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > >>I don't see why you should get problems on SMP hardware, since the >>threads are all part of the same process and should therefore (I'd have >>thought) be tagged with the same processor affinity. Hence the GIL >>should manage contention successfully. > > > Could you explain your thinking there? I don't know that much > about SMP. Would have thought that affinity might make a difference > with on-processor cache and so forth, but would be transparent to > applications. Are you thinking that the processor affinity would > essentially serialize execution, so SMP hardware doesn't matter > because your threads won't execute concurrently anyway? > I was just trying to underline that the separate threads won't run concurrently, I suppose, and choosing a bad way to do it (since the affinity need not be set and the process can freely migrate between processors). > >>Threads most often use Queue.Queue to communicate, precisely because its >>operations are guaranteed thread-safe. > > > (Just thought that might bear repetition.) > Yes!
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
