On 2011-08-12, at 20:59 , Sturla Molden wrote: > Den 12.08.2011 18:51, skrev Xavier Morel: >> * Erlang uses "erlang processes", which are very cheap preempted *processes* >> (no shared memory). There have always been tens to thousands to millions of >> erlang processes per interpreter source contention within the interpreter >> going back to pre-SMP by setting the number of schedulers per node to 1 can >> yield increased overall performances) > > Technically, one can make threads behave like processes if they don't share > memory pages (though they will still share address space). Erlangs use of > 'process' instead of 'thread' does not mean an Erlang process has to be > implemented as an OS process. Of course not. I did not write anything implying that.
> With one interpreter per thread, and a malloc that does not let threads share > memory pages (one heap per thread), Python could do the same. Again, my point is that Erlang does not work "with one interpreter per thread". Which was your claim. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
