The implementation details need to be flushed out, but agnostic of these, do you believe this a valid solution to the initial problem? Do you also see it as a beneficial optimization to Pool, given that we don't need to store funcs/bound-methods/partials on the tasks themselves?
The latter concern about "what happens if `self` changed value in the parent" is the same concern as "what happens if `func` changes in the parent?" given the current implementation. This is an assumption that is currently made with Pool.map_async(func, ls). If "func" changes in the parent, there is no communication with the child. So one just needs to be aware that calling "map_async(self.func, ls)" while the state of "self" is changing, will not communicate changes to each worker. The state is frozen when Pool.map is called, just as is the case now. On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:07 AM Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > 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/seanharr11%40gmail.com >
_______________________________________________ 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
