Andre Meyer schrieb: > While I understand the difficulties in removing the GIL and the > potential negative effect on single-threaded applications I would very > much encourage discussion to seriously consider removing the GIL (maybe > optionally) in Py3k. If not, what alternatives would you suggest?
Encouraging "very much" is probably not good enough to make anything happen. Actual code contributions may, as may offering a bounty (although it probably depends on the size of the bounty whether anybody wants to collect it). The alternatives are very straight-forward: 1. use Python the same way as you did for Python 2.x. I.e. create many threads, and have only one of them run. Use the other processors for something else, or don't use them at all. 2. use Python the same way as many other people do. Don't use threads, instead use multiple processors, and some sort of IPC. 3. don't use Python, at least not for the activities that need to run on multiple processors. If you want to fully use your multiple processors, depending on the application, I'd typically go with option 2 or 3. Option 2 if the code to parallelize is written in Python, option 3 if it is written in C (yes, you can use multiple truly concurrent threads in Python: just release the GIL on the C level; you can't make any calls into Python until you reacquire the GIL). Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
