Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > Well, if instead of gnashing your teeth, you had contributed to the > issue, perhaps a patch would have been committed by now (or perhaps > not, but who knows?). If you stay silent, you cannot assume that > someone else will stand up for *your* opinion (and the fact that nobody > did could indicate that not many people care about the issue, actually).
Unfortunately, I somehow did not even *know* about the issue until February, after the issue had been closed. What I did know was that some of our big complicated Python multi-threaded daemons had shown puzzling resource hogging when moved from small Macs to large 8-core machines with hardware RAID and lots of memory. But, simpleton that I am, I'd presumed that threading in Python wasn't broken, and was looking elsewhere for the cause. > Python works reasonably well on multicore hardware, especially if you > don't run spinning loops and if you're not on Mac OS X. I'm not sure what you mean by "spinning loops". But I *am* on Mac OS X, along with an increasing percentage of the world. And I'm dismayed that there's no momentum to fix this problem. Not a good sign. Bill _______________________________________________ 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
