Guido van Rossum schrieb: > On 5/8/07, Luis P Caamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 5/7/07, "Guido van Rossum" wrote: >> > Around '99 Greg Stein and Mark Hammond tried to get rid of the GIL. >> > They removed most of the global mutable data structures, added >> > explicit locks to the remaining ones and to individual mutable >> > objects, and actually got the whole thing working. Unfortunately even >> > on the system with the fastest locking primitives (Windows at the >> > time) they measured a 2x slow-down on a single CPU due to all the >> > extra locking operations going on. >> >> That just breaks my heart.<sigh> >> >> You gotta finish that sentence, it was a slow down on single CPU with >> a speed increase with two or more CPUs, leveling out at 4 CPUs or so. >> >> This was the same situation on every major OS kernel, including AIX, >> HPUX, Linux, Tru64, etc., when they started supporting SMP machines, >> which is why all of them at some time sported two kernels, one for SMP >> machines with the spinlock code and one for single processor machines >> with the spinlock code #ifdef'ed out. For some, like IBM/AIX and >> HPUX, eventually and as expected, all their servers became MPs and >> then they stopped delivering the SP kernel. >> >> The same would've been true for the python interpreter, one for MP and >> one for SP, and eventually, even in the PC world, everything would be >> MP and the SP interpreter would disappear. > > The difference is, for an OS kernel, there really isn't any other way > to benefit from multiple CPUs. But for Python, there is -- run > multiple processes instead of threads!
Wouldn't multiple interpreters (assuming the problems with them would be fixed) in the same process give the same benefit? A separate GIL for each one? Thomas _______________________________________________ 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
