Re: [Python-Dev] "Fixing" the new GIL

2010-03-15 Thread Cameron Simpson
On 14Mar2010 19:32, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: | > Speaking for myself, I have an app with a daemon mode which I expect | > will sometimes behave as described; it answers requests and thus has I/O | > bound threads waiting for requests and dispatching replies, and threads | > doing data handling, wh

Re: [Python-Dev] "Fixing" the new GIL

2010-03-15 Thread Cameron Simpson
On 15Mar2010 09:28, Martin v. L�wis wrote: | > As for the argument that an application with cpu intensive work being | > driven by the IO itself will work itself out... No it won't, it can | > get into beat patterns where it is handling requests quite rapidly up | > until one that causes a long c

Re: [Python-Dev] __file__ and bytecode-only

2010-03-15 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Mar 15, 2010, at 07:43 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >He did (in favour of keeping the directory visible). http://www.mail-archive.com/python-dev@python.org/msg45203.html (added to pep) -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Python-Dev mail

Re: [Python-Dev] __file__ and bytecode-only

2010-03-15 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Mar 14, 2010, at 04:37 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >The bdist_wininst installer also compiles modules explicitly on >install (as does the python.org Windows MSI installer). I've always >assumed that this worked via compileall, but haven't checked. >Regardless, these should probably also be covered in

Re: [Python-Dev] __file__ and bytecode-only

2010-03-15 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Mar 14, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >Hmm - methinks the PEP actually needs to talk explicitly about the >py_compile and compileall modules. These compile the files directly >rather than using the import system's side-effect, so they'll need to >understand the intricacies of the new s

Re: [Python-Dev] (no subject)

2010-03-15 Thread David Beazley
On Mon 15/03/10 4:34 AM , "Martin v. Löwis" mar...@v.loewis.de sent: > > So, just to be clear about the my bug report, it > is directly related> to the problem of overlapping I/O requests with > CPU-bound processing.> This kind of scenario comes up in the context of > many> applications--especia

Re: [Python-Dev] "Fixing" the new GIL

2010-03-15 Thread Martin v. Löwis
> So, just to be clear about the my bug report, it is directly related > to the problem of overlapping I/O requests with CPU-bound processing. > This kind of scenario comes up in the context of many > applications--especially those based on cooperating processes, > multiprocessing, and message pass

Re: [Python-Dev] "Fixing" the new GIL

2010-03-15 Thread Martin v. Löwis
> As for the argument that an application with cpu intensive work being > driven by the IO itself will work itself out... No it won't, it can > get into beat patterns where it is handling requests quite rapidly up > until one that causes a long computation to start comes in. At that > point it'll