On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:33:32 -0400 Sean Harrington <seanhar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nathaniel - this if this solution can be made performant, than I would > be more than satisfied. > > I think this would require removing "func" from the "task tuple", and > storing the "func" "once per worker" somewhere globally (maybe a class > attribute set post-fork?). > > This also has the beneficial outcome of increasing general performance of > Pool.map and friends. I've seen MANY folks across the interwebs doing > things like passing instance methods to map, resulting in "big" tasks, and > slower-than-sequential parallelized code. Parallelizing "instance methods" > by passing them to map, w/o needing to wrangle with staticmethods and > globals, would be a GREAT feature! It'd just be as easy as: > > Pool.map(self.func, ls) > > What do you think about this idea? This is something I'd be able to take > on, assuming I get a few core dev blessings...
Well, I'm not sure how it would work, so it's difficult to give an opinion. How do you plan to avoid passing "self"? By caching (by equality? by identity?)? Something else? But what happens if "self" changed value (in the case of a mutable object) in the parent? Do you keep using the stale version in the child? That would break compatibility... Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
