On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:42:50 -0400 Sean Harrington <seanhar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would contend that this is much more granular than Dask - this is just an > optimization of Pool.map() to avoid redundantly passing the same `func` > repeatedly, once per task, to each worker, with the primary goal of > eliminating redundant serialization of large-memory-footprinted Callables. > This is a different use case than Dask - I don't intend to approach the > shared memory or distributed computing realms. > > And the second call to Pool.map would update the cached "self" as a part of > its initialization workflow, s.t. "the latest version of self when map() is > called is taken into account".
I still don't understand how that works. If you "updated the cached self", then surely you must transmit it to the child, right? 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
