On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > On 26/07/2010 04:42, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Peter Portante >> <peter.a.porta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> FWIW: We use Python at Tabblo, straddled across Python 2.5.4 and 2.6.5. >>> They >>> work. And they work well. But we make light use of threads (mostly >>> background I/O handling), and heavy use of multiple processes because we >>> can't take advantage of our multi-core systems otherwise. >>> >> >> Isn't this an indication that the GIL is, in fact, not (much of) a >> problem? >> >> I wish those trying to get rid of the GIL well. But it may not be the >> panacea some folks are hoping for. Multi-threaded programming remains >> hard (and removing the GIL might actually make it harder). >> >> Jython and IronPython don't have a GIL, and I think PyPy may not >> either. Does anyone have experience with GIL-free programming in one >> of those? >> >> > > Oh, and PyPy does have a GIL but the developers say it wouldn't be a huge > amount of work to remove it.
It wouldn't be as huge as on CPython, since we don't have reference counting, but it's still *a lot* of work and someone would have to step and take this task (since none core pypy dev is that interested in that). > > Presumably they would have to add locking in the right places - which would > then impact performance. As PyPy doesn't use reference counting adding > locking shouldn't impact performance as much as previous attempts with > CPython have. That's one thing but the other thing is that JIT can remove a lot of locks (like it does no JVM), but that's yet another batch of work to be done. Cheers, fijal _______________________________________________ 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
