On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:24 PM Pablo Galindo Salgado <pablog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you mean "an order of magnitude less overhead than the current > CPython implementation" do you mean compared with the main branch? We > recently implemented already almost everything is listed in this paragraph. > I think I wrote that in August when "current CPython" meant something different from today :) I'll update it. Thanks for the links to the PRs. I'll need to look at them more closely, but one I think one remaining difference is that the "nogil" interpreter stays within the same interpreter loop for many Python function calls, while upstream CPython recursively calls into _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault. I've been using this mini-benchmark to measure the overhead of Python function calls for various numbers of arguments and keywords: https://github.com/colesbury/nogil/blob/fb6aabede5f7f1936a21c2f48ec7fcc0848d74bf/benchmarks/call_benchmark.py For zero, two, and four argument functions, I get: nogil (nogil/fb6aabed): 10ns, 14ns, 18ns 3.11 (main/b108db63): 47ns, 54ns, 63ns
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/UZKOY4Y3QWT76TCXJ3QXMEGRODN2DOGB/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
