Disclaimer: I may be doing something wrong, I did not put a lot of effort into it. With the microbenchmark that was offered in the GH issue, I see little difference. Use the attached zip file to reproduce yourself. Change tox.ini to "cython<3" to try 0.29.x. BTW, in the 0.29.x case, I see no compilation error as claimed in the GH issue.
$ ./run.sh CFLAGS=-g0 -Ofast -DCYTHON_FAST_GIL=0 Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.08735537528991699 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.6329536437988281 py37: OK ✔ in 3.57 seconds Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.09007453918457031 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.4598276615142822 py38: OK ✔ in 3.19 seconds Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.10935306549072266 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.4512367248535156 py39: OK ✔ in 3.25 seconds Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.09970474243164062 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.46637773513793945 py310: OK ✔ in 3.21 seconds Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.08569073677062988 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.46811795234680176 py311: OK ✔ in 3.22 seconds Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.15221118927001953 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.2246694564819336 py37: OK (3.57 seconds) py38: OK (3.19 seconds) py39: OK (3.25 seconds) py310: OK (3.21 seconds) py311: OK (3.22 seconds) pypy3.9: OK (5.24 seconds) congratulations :) (21.71 seconds) CFLAGS=-g0 -Ofast -DCYTHON_FAST_GIL=1 Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.08835673332214355 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.6265637874603271 py37: OK ✔ in 1.42 seconds Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.09030938148498535 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.456279993057251 py38: OK ✔ in 1.17 seconds Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.10986089706420898 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.45894527435302734 py39: OK ✔ in 1.2 seconds Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.10107588768005371 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.5052204132080078 py310: OK ✔ in 1.21 seconds Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.08566665649414062 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.4581136703491211 py311: OK ✔ in 1.13 seconds Running test_gil_already_held ... took 0.15286779403686523 Running test_gil_released ... took 0.22533607482910156 py37: OK (1.42 seconds) py38: OK (1.17 seconds) py39: OK (1.20 seconds) py310: OK (1.21 seconds) py311: OK (1.13 seconds) pypy3.9: OK (1.64 seconds) congratulations :) (7.81 seconds) On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 10:09, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I've seen reports that Cython's "FastGIL" implementation (which basically > keeps the GIL state in a thread-local variable) is no longer faster than > CPython's plain GIL implementation in recent Python 3.x versions. > Potentially even slower. See the report in > > https://github.com/cython/cython/issues/5703 > > It would be helpful to get user feedback on this. > > If you have GIL-heavy Cython code, especially with nested > with-nogil/with-gil sections across functions, and a benchmark that > exercises it, could you please run the benchmark with and without the > feature enabled and report the results? > > You can add "-DCYTHON_FAST_GIL=0" to your CFLAGS to disabled it (and "=1" > to enable it explicitly). It's enabled by default in CPython 3.6-3.11 (but > disabled in Cython 0.29.x on Python 3.11). > > Thanks, > Stefan > _______________________________________________ > cython-devel mailing list > cython-devel@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel > -- Lisandro Dalcin ============ Senior Research Scientist Extreme Computing Research Center (ECRC) King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) http://ecrc.kaust.edu.sa/
<<attachment: fastgil.zip>>
_______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
