Hi Vinay,
On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:23:48 -0000 Vinay Sharma via Python-ideas <python-ideas@python.org> wrote: > > Also, as far as I know (might be wrong) Value is stored in shared memory and > is therefore very fast also. So, what I am proposing is a similar object to > value to which operations like add, sub, xor, etc are atomic. Therefore, I > wouldn't have to use lock at all for synchronization. Updates to these values > can be made very easily by using calls such as __sync_and_and_fetch(), even > when they are stored in a shared memory segment, accessible across processes. I'm curious what your use case is. I have never seen multiprocess Python programs operate at this low level of concurrency (though it's generally possible). The common model when using multiprocessing is to dispatch large tasks and let each worker grind on a task on its own. If you spend your time synchronizining access to shared memory (to the point that you need a separate lock per shared variable), perhaps your model of sharing work between processes is not right. In any case, providing C++-like atomic types sounds very low-level in a language like Python. I'm skeptical that it would address more than a couple extremely niche use cases, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/JMVCCKMGLAJRUP5P2O2UZADLWNCRUDEE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
