On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:21:45 -0800 Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > The thing I found most surprising about that blog post was that contrary to > common wisdom, refcnt updates per se had essentially no effect on the > amount of memory shared between CoW processes, and the problems were all > due to the cycle collector.
Indeed, it was unexpected, though it can be explained easily: refcount updates touch only the live working set, while GC passes scan through all existing objects, even those that are never actually used. 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
