On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:59 PM Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> I think some perspective might be useful here :-).
>
> The last time we merged a new concurrency model in the stdlib, it was asyncio.
>
> [snip]
>
> OTOH, AFAICT the new concurrency model in PEP 554 has never actually
> been used, and it isn
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM Eric Snow wrote:
> Dilemma
>
>
> Many folks have conflated PEP 554 with having a per-interpreter GIL.
> In fact, I was careful to avoid any mention of parallelism or the GIL
> in the PEP. Nonetheless some are expecting that when PEP 554 lands we
> wil
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:54 PM Victor Stinner wrote:
> Honestly, I don't think that we are far from being able to move the
> GIL lock per interpreter. But this change alone is useless, since we
> still have too many C extensions which are not ready for that:
Agreed. This is a big part of why I
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:39 PM Victor Stinner wrote:
> Sharing directly singletons like None can become a performance kill
> once subinterpreters will run in parallel:
> https://bugs.python.org/issue39511
>
> Mark Shannon summarized: "Having two CPUs write to the same cache line
> is a well known
Le ven. 17 avr. 2020 à 20:56, Eric Snow a écrit :
> keep in mind that
> subinterpreters currently have various other limitations (aside from
> sharing the GIL):
>
> * nothing about them has been optimized (e.g. interpreter startup,
> data sharing, data passing)
> * extension modules with process-g
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:39 PM Victor Stinner wrote:
> I have concerns about shared data.
>
> The current implementation of CPython and subinterpreters still shares
> singletons. Moreover, I understand that the PEP proposes to first
> directly share PyObject between subinterpreters, like bytes ob
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:38 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
> Eric Snow wrote:
> > 1. merge PEP 554 into 3.9 even if per-interpreter GIL doesn't get into 3.9
> > (they get parallelism for free in 3.10)
> > 2. like 1, but mark the module as provisional until per-interpreter GIL
> > lands
> > 3. do not m
Hi Eric,
Le ven. 17 avr. 2020 à 20:56, Eric Snow a écrit :
> With the 3.9 feature freeze coming up I'm considering options for PEP
> 554. I'm hopeful to have a pronouncement from Antoine in the near
> future. If that comes in time for 3.9, we will have the
> implementation ready to go. It is a
Eric Snow wrote:
> Hi all,
> It was nice to speak with many of you at the online language summit
> this week. It was the next best thing to seeing you all in person! :)
> With the 3.9 feature freeze coming up I'm considering options for PEP
>
> I'm hopeful to have a pronouncement from Antoine in
Hi all,
It was nice to speak with many of you at the online language summit
this week. It was the next best thing to seeing you all in person! :)
With the 3.9 feature freeze coming up I'm considering options for PEP
554. I'm hopeful to have a pronouncement from Antoine in the near
future. If t
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2020-04-10 - 2020-04-17)
Python tracker at https://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open7443 (+10)
closed 44618 (+55)
total 52061 (+65)
Open issues wi
11 matches
Mail list logo
