I was not aware of PyParallel. The PyParellel "parallel thread"
line-of-execution implementation is pretty interesting. Trent, big kudos
to you on that effort.
Since you're speaking in the past tense and said "but we're not doing it
like that", I infer that the notion of a parallel thread was turned down
for integration into CPython, as that appears to have been the original
goal.
However I am unable to locate a rationale for why that integration was
turned down. Was it deemed to be too complex to execute, perhaps in the
context of providing C extension compatibility? Was there a desire to
see a similar implementation on Linux as well as Windows? Some other
reason? Since I presume you were directly involved in the discussions,
perhaps you have a link to the relevant thread handy?
The last update I see from you RE PyParallel on this list is:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-September/035725.html
David Foster | Seattle, WA, USA
On 7/9/18 9:17 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 11:27:08AM -0700, David Foster wrote:
I'd like to solicit some feedback on what might be the most
efficient way to make forward progress on efficient parallelization
in Python inside the same OS process. The most promising areas
appear to be:
You might find PyParallel interesting, at least from a "here's what was
tried, it worked, but we're not doing it like that" perspective.
http://pyparallel.org
https://speakerdeck.com/trent/pyparallel-how-we-removed-the-gil-and-exploited-all-cores
I still think it was a pretty successful proof-of-concept regarding
removing the GIL without having to actually remove it. Performance was
pretty good too, as you can see in those graphs.
--
David Foster | Seattle, WA, USA
Regards,
Trent.
--
https://trent.me
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
