Hi, On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, VanL <van.lindb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that a better (read: closer term, and more likely to be performant) > answer is to create multiple interpreters, *each with their own GIL, each in > their own thread,* and connect them via channels (essentially a pair of > queues).
That's hand-waving away the real question: what can you pass over channels? If the interpreters are supposed to be completely separated, then you can only pass strings, and the result looks exactly like separated processes. You can extend it to pass tuples and other simple data structures, but that's the same as extending the cross-process communication protocol. If on the other hand you can pass arbitrary random objects, then you have the issue that the objects are not really owned by one interpreter or the other; I don't really think it can be made to work in the current model of the object space reference. Even if we manage, we'd end up again with the issue of concurrent changes to shared objects, which is the core problem to solve in any case --- either in your approach or with STM or with fine-grained locking. A bientôt, Armin. _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
