2009/11/7 Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> > > Hello again, > > > It shows that, on my platform for this specific benchmark: > > * newgil manage to leverage a significant amount of parallelism > > (1.7) where python 3.1 does not (3.1 is 80% slower) > > I think you are mistaken: > > -j0 (main thread only) > newgil: 47.483s, 47.605s, 47.512s > -j4 (4 consumer threads, main thread producing/waiting) > newgil: 48.428s, 49.217s > > The runtimes are actually the same, so newgil doesn't leverage anything. > However, it doesn't degrade performance like 2.x/3.1 does :-) >
Ooops, I was comparing to 3.1 -j4 times which make no sense. One would think I wanted to see that result since I though the GIL was released :/. This greatly reduce the interest of this benchmark... > > * 3.1 is more than 2 times slower than python 2.6 on this > > benchmark > > That's the most worrying outcome I'd say. Are you sure the benchmark > really does the same thing? Under 2.6, you should add re.UNICODE to the > regular expression flags so as to match the 3.x semantics. > I've tried, but there is no change in result (the regexp does not use \w & co but specify a lot unicode ranges). All strings are already of unicode type in 2.6. > > [if I understood correctly in 3.x regex release the GIL]. > > Unless I've missed something it doesn't, no. > Hmmm, I was confusing with other modules (bzip2 & hashlib?). Looking back at the result of your benchmark it's obvious. Is there a place where the list of functions releasing the GIL is available? I did not see anything in bz2.compress documentation.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com