Armin, I apologize, I'm only half paying attention, trying to follow along. What does "ame" stand for? Is there some reason a more descriptive name isn't used? "Atomic MEmory"? "Armin's Magic Enterprise?"
Thx, Skip On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Armin Rigo <ar...@tunes.org> wrote: > Hi Holger, > > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 16:48, holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> wrote: >> Maybe "atomic" could become a __pypy__ builtin and there could be a "ame" or >> so package which atomic-using apps could depend on? In any case, >> I really like the twist of "To remedy the GIL use AME" :) > > Yes, indeed, a private name in the __pypy__ module looks fine. The > applications are supposed to use the "ame" module or package (or > whatever name makes sense, but I'm getting convinced that > "transaction" is not a good one). The "ame" module re-exports > __pypy__._atomic as ame.atomic for general use, but also offers more > stuff like the Runner class with add()/run() methods. > > Also, again, it doesn't necessarily make sense to force a lexically > nested usage of ame.atomic, so we could replace __pypy__._atomic with > two primitives __pypy__._atomic_start and _atomic_stop, re-exported in > the "ame" module, and write the "ame.atomic" context manager in pure > Python. > >> I am wondering how this all applies to the execnet-execution model, btw. >> (http://codespeak.net/execnet for those who wonder what i mean) >> remote_exec()s on the same gateway run currently in different threads >> and thus only send/receive needs to use "with atomic", right? > > In my proposal, existing applications run fine, using multiple cores > if they are based on multiple threads. You use "with atomic" to have > an additional degree of synchronization when you don't want to worry > about locks & friends (which should be *always*, but is still an > optional benefit in this model). Maybe you're just talking about > simplifying the implementation of execnet's channels to use "with > atomic" instead of acquiring and releasing locks. Then yes, could be, > as long as you remember that "with atomic" gives neither more nor less > than its naive implementation: "don't release the GIL there". > > > A bientôt, > > Armin. > _______________________________________________ > pypy-dev mailing list > pypy-dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
