Hey Glyph, On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: > It would be hard for me to put an exact number on what I would find > acceptable, but I was really hoping that we could get a *reduced* memory > footprint in the long term. > > My real concern here is not absolute memory usage, but usage for each > additional Python process on a system; even if Python supported fast, > GIL-free multithreading, I'd still prefer the additional isolation of > multiprocess concurrency. As it currently stands, starting cores+1 Python > processes can start to really hurt, especially in many-core-low-RAM > environments like the Playstation 3. > > So, if memory usage went up by 20%, but per-interpreter overhead were > decreased by more than that, I'd personally be happy.
There's been a recent thread on our mailing list about a patch that dramatically reduces the memory footprint of multiprocess concurrency by separating reference counts from objects. We're looking at possibly incorporating this work into Unladen Swallow, though I think it should really go into upstream CPython first (since it's largely orthogonal to the JIT work). You can see the thread here: http://groups.google.com/group/unladen-swallow/browse_thread/thread/21d7248e8279b328/2343816abd1bd669 Thanks, Collin Winter _______________________________________________ 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
