Re: [Python-Dev] Python Interpreter Thread Safety?

2005-01-28 Thread Martin v. Lwis
Evan Jones wrote: Sorry, I really meant *parallel* execution of Python code: Multiple threads simultaneously executing a Python program, potentially on different CPUs. There cannot be parallel threads on a single CPU - for threads to be truly parallel, you *must* have two CPUs, at a minimum.

RE: [Python-Dev] Python Interpreter Thread Safety?

2005-01-28 Thread Michael Chermside
Martin v. Löwis writes: Due to some unfortunate historical reasons, there is code which enters free() without holding the GIL - and that is what the allocator specifically deals with. Except for this single case, all callers of the allocator are required to hold the GIL. Donovan Baarda

Re: [Python-Dev] Python Interpreter Thread Safety?

2005-01-28 Thread Tim Peters
... [Evan Jones] What I was trying to ask with my last email was what are the trouble areas? There are probably many that I am unaware of, due to my unfamiliarity the Python internals. Google on Python free threading. That's not meant to be curt, it's just meant to recognize that the task is

Re: [Python-Dev] Python Interpreter Thread Safety?

2005-01-28 Thread Evan Jones
On Jan 28, 2005, at 19:44, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Python threads can run truly parallel, as long as one of them invoke BEGIN_ALLOW_THREADS. Except that they are really executing C code, not Python code. I think nobody really remembers - ask Google for Python free threading. Greg Stein did the