Luis added the comment: Thanks for information and explanations.
The option of writing a tweaked serialization mechanism in Queue for Pool and implement a sharedmem sounds like fun, not sure if the pure-copy-on-write of forking can be achieved tho, it would be nice to know if it is actually possible (the project mentioned in issue17560 still needs to "dump" the arrays in the filesystem) As quick fix for us, I've created a simple wrapper around Pool and its map, it creates a Queue for the results and uses Process to start the workers, this works just fine. Simplicity and consistency are great, but I still believe that Pool, in LINUX-based systems, by serializing arguments, creates duplication and works inefficiently, and this could be avoided. Obviously it's not me who takes the decisions and I don't have the time to investigate it further, so, after this petty rant, should we close this bug? :> ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23979> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
