On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:30 AM Sebastian Krause <[email protected]> wrote: > > Guido van Rossum <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is there some kind of optimized communication possible yet between > > subinterpreters? (Otherwise I still worry that it's no better than > > subprocesses -- and it could be worse because when one > > subinterpreter experiences a hard crash or runs out of memory, all > > others have to die with it.) > > The use case that I have in mind with subinterpreters is > Windows. With its lack of fork() and the way it spawns a fresh > interpreter process it always feels a bit weird to use > multiprocessing on Windows. Would it be faster and/or cleaner to > start a new in-process subinterpreter instead?
Subinterpreters don't support fork() either -- they can't share any objects, so each one has to start from a blank slate and go through the Python startup sequence, re-import all modules from scratch, etc. Subinterpreters do get to skip the OS process spawn overhead, but most of the startup costs are the same. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/RIK75U3ROEHWZL4VENQSQECB4F4GDELV/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
