On Sep 13, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> "Since we are guaranteeing that synchronized code is running on a
>>> single
>>> core, it is the equivalent of a lock at the cost of a context
>>> switch."
>>>
>>> This is precisely what a lock costs today: a context switch.
>>>
>>
>> Re
On Sep 13, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> What do you think?
>
> I think what you are describing is the situation of today,
> except in a less-performant way. The kernel *already*
> implements such a "synchronization server", except that
> all CPUs can act as such. You write
>
> "Si
I was reading GvR's post on this and came up with a theory on how to
tackle the problem.
I ended up putting it in a blog post.
http://www.brainwavelive.com/blog/index.php?/archives/12-Suggestion-
for-removing-the-Python-Global-Interpreter-Lock.html
What do you think?
Prateek
On Sep 12, 200
