On Apr 21, 9:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 20, 10:57 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>On Apr 17, 3:37 am, Jona
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Apr 20, 10:57 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Apr 17, 3:37 am, Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
Using 100% of the
On Apr 20, 10:57 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 17, 3:37 am, Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
>
> >> Using 100% of the CPU is a bug, not a feature.
>
> >No it isn't. That idea is borne of the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Apr 17, 3:37 am, Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> Using 100% of the CPU is a bug, not a feature.
>
>No it isn't. That idea is borne of the narrowmindedness of people who
>write server-like network apps. W
On Apr 19, 10:29 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> FWIW, NT's POSIX subsytem fork() uses (or used to use) the NULL
> SectionHandle method and was POSIX certified, so it's certainly
> possible.
Windows Vista Ultimate comes with Interix integrated, renamed
'Subsystem for Unix bas
On Apr 18, 9:29 pm, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18 Apr, 21:28, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Passing a NULL SectionHandle to NTCreateProcess/CreateProcessEx
> > results in a fork-style copy-on-write duplicate of the current process.
>
> I know about NtCreateP
On 18 Apr, 21:28, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Passing a NULL SectionHandle to NTCreateProcess/CreateProcessEx
> results in a fork-style copy-on-write duplicate of the current process.
I know about NtCreateProcess and ZwCreateProcess, but they just create
an empty process - no
On Apr 17, 10:30 am, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17 Apr, 15:21, "Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If not, what is the advantage above already present solutions?
>
> Well... I like the processing module. Except that Wintendo toy OS has
> no fork() availabe for the
On Apr 18, 4:30 am, Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 7:40 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'd love to be wrong about that, but the GIL *has* been the subject of
> > > extensive efforts to kill it over the last fi
Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 7:40 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd love to be wrong about that, but the GIL *has* been the subject of
> > extensive efforts to kill it over the last five years, and it has
> > survived despite the best efforts of the devel
> An there you have the answer. It's really very simple :-)
I'm fairly skeptical that it actually works. If the different
Python interpreters all import the same extension module
(say, _socket.pyd), windows won't load the DLL twice, but
only one time. So you end up with a single copy of _socket,
w
On Apr 17, 1:03 pm, Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:18 am, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 3:37 am, Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > If you can't rewrite
> > > your algorithm to be disk or network bound, next optimization step i
On Apr 17, 7:16 pm, Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:19 am, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > An there you have the answer. It's really very simple :-)
>
> That's an interesting hack.
>
> Now, how do the processes communicate with each other without steppin
On Apr 17, 11:05 am, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 6:03 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Interesting. Windows specific, but there's other ways to do the same
> > thing more portably.
>
> I believe you can compile Python as a shared object (.so) on Linux as
On Apr 17, 9:48 am, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:46 pm, Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Have you tackled the communication problem? The way I see it, one
> > interpreter cannot "see" objects created in the other because they
> > have separate pools of ... e
On Apr 17, 8:19 am, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> An there you have the answer. It's really very simple :-)
>
That's an interesting hack.
Now, how do the processes communicate with each other without stepping
on each other's work and without using a lock?
Once you get that solved,
On Apr 17, 6:40 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd love to be wrong about that, but the GIL *has* been the subject of
> extensive efforts to kill it over the last five years, and it has
> survived despite the best efforts of the developers.
>
To add to that...
In my mind, I see thr
On Apr 17, 6:03 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting. Windows specific, but there's other ways to do the same
> thing more portably.
I believe you can compile Python as a shared object (.so) on Linux as
well, and thus loadable by ctypes.
> The bigger issue is that you can'
On Apr 17, 1:18 am, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 3:37 am, Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > If you can't rewrite
> > your algorithm to be disk or network bound, next optimization step is
> > C.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't like being told to use C. Perhaps I wou
On Apr 17, 5:46 pm, Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you tackled the communication problem? The way I see it, one
> interpreter cannot "see" objects created in the other because they
> have separate pools of ... everything. They can communicate by
> passing serialized objects thro
On Apr 17, 7:40 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd love to be wrong about that, but the GIL *has* been the subject of
> extensive efforts to kill it over the last five years, and it has
> survived despite the best efforts of the developers.
Yo. http://code.google.com/p/python-safet
On Apr 17, 9:19 am, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17 Apr, 10:25, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > help progress at all. I think neither was the case in this thread -
> > the guy claimed that he actually did something about the GIL, and
> > now we are all waiting for
MRAB wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:22 am, Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hallöchen!
>>
>> Tim Daneliuk writes:
>>> Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
[...]
> I just had one moment of exceptional clarity, during which
> realized how I could get the GIL out of my way... It's so
> simp
sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I use my main interpreter to delegate a task to one of its
> embedded 'children', its GIL will be released while it is waiting
> for the answer. Associating each embedded interpreter with a
> threading.Thread is all that remains. The GIL is released wh
On Apr 17, 5:22 am, Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hallöchen!
>
> Tim Daneliuk writes:
> > Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> I just had one moment of exceptional clarity, during which
> >>> realized how I could get the GIL out of my way... It's so
> >>> simple, I cannot he
On 17 Apr, 10:12, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quick, write it down before the drugs wear off.
Hehe, I don't take drugs, apart from NSAIDs for arthritis. Read my
answer to Martin v. Löwis.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 17 Apr, 09:11, Matias Surdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's april 1st again???
Not according to my calendar. This was not meant as a joke. I think I
may have solved the GIL issue. See my answer to Martin v. Löwis for a
full explanation.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-lis
On 17 Apr, 10:25, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> help progress at all. I think neither was the case in this thread -
> the guy claimed that he actually did something about the GIL, and
> now we are all waiting for him to also tell us what it is that he
> did.
Ok, I did not remove
On 17 Apr, 15:21, "Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If not, what is the advantage above already present solutions?
Well... I like the processing module. Except that Wintendo toy OS has
no fork() availabe for the Win32 subsystem, which makes it a bit
limited on that platform (slow a
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> For the record, I am not complaining about that GIL. As I said, I
>> understand and approve of why it's there. I am, however, complaining
>> about attitude that if you want to be free of the GIL you're doing
>> something wrong.
>
> If you _want_ to be free of the GIL, y
sturlamolden wrote:
You killed the GIL, you bastard! :-)
> Hello Guys...
>
> I just had one moment of exceptional clarity, during which realized
> how I could get the GIL out of my way... It's so simple, I cannot help
> wondering why nobody has thought of it before. Duh! Now I am going to
> sit
On Apr 17, 11:49 am, Marco Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Torsten Bronger wrote:
> >>> If I were you I would keep it a secret until a Hollywood producer
> >>> offers big bucks for the film rights.
> >> Who would play Guido, I wonder?
>
> > Ralf Möller. No other.
>
> And the GIL killer?
>
> C
Torsten Bronger wrote:
>>> If I were you I would keep it a secret until a Hollywood producer
>>> offers big bucks for the film rights.
>> Who would play Guido, I wonder?
>
> Ralf Möller. No other.
And the GIL killer?
Clive Owen, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/lis
> For the record, I am not complaining about that GIL. As I said, I
> understand and approve of why it's there. I am, however, complaining
> about attitude that if you want to be free of the GIL you're doing
> something wrong.
If you _want_ to be free of the GIL, you are not _doing_ anything, an
On Apr 17, 3:37 am, Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Using 100% of the CPU is a bug, not a feature.
No it isn't. That idea is borne of the narrowmindedness of people who
write server-like network apps. What's true for web servers isn't
true for every application.
> If you can't re
sturlamolden wrote:
> Hello Guys...
>
> I just had one moment of exceptional clarity, during which realized
> how I could get the GIL out of my way... It's so simple, I cannot help
> wondering why nobody has thought of it before. Duh! Now I am going to
> sit and and marvel at my creation for a whi
On Apr 16, 5:37 pm, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One single process of CPython is using all the cpu power
> of my dual-core laptop.
Are they stuck in a while loop, waiting for their resource to become
available?
Using 100% of the CPU is a bug, not a feature. If you can't rewrite
your
It's april 1st again???
sturlamolden escribió:
> Hello Guys...
>
> I just had one moment of exceptional clarity, during which realized
> how I could get the GIL out of my way... It's so simple, I cannot help
> wondering why nobody has thought of it before. Duh! Now I am going to
> sit and and ma
Hallöchen!
Tim Daneliuk writes:
> Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I just had one moment of exceptional clarity, during which
>>> realized how I could get the GIL out of my way... It's so
>>> simple, I cannot help wondering why nobody has thought of it
>>> before. [...]
>>
>> If I were
Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
>> Hello Guys...
>>
>> I just had one moment of exceptional clarity, during which realized
>> how I could get the GIL out of my way... It's so simple, I cannot help
>> wondering why nobody has thought of it before. Duh! Now I am going to
>> sit and and marvel at my creation
> Hello Guys...
>
> I just had one moment of exceptional clarity, during which realized
> how I could get the GIL out of my way... It's so simple, I cannot help
> wondering why nobody has thought of it before. Duh! Now I am going to
> sit and and marvel at my creation for a while, and then go to be
Hello Guys...
I just had one moment of exceptional clarity, during which realized
how I could get the GIL out of my way... It's so simple, I cannot help
wondering why nobody has thought of it before. Duh! Now I am going to
sit and and marvel at my creation for a while, and then go to bed
(it's pas
42 matches
Mail list logo
