On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] assuming the rest of idea works out > well, we'd eventually like to move to a tiered model where the GIL > becomes a read/write lock. Most code execution in subinterpreters > would then only need a read lock on the GIL, and hence could happily > execute code in parallel with other subinterpreters running on other > cores. > Since the GIL protects refcounts and refcounts are probably the most frequently written item, I'm skeptical of this. > However, that aspect of the idea is currently just hypothetical > handwaving that would need to deal with (and would be informed by) the > current work happening with respect to the GILectomy, as it's not > particularly interesting as far as concurrency modeling is concerned. > > By contrast, being able to reliably model Communicating Sequential > Processes in Python without incurring any communications overhead > though (ala goroutines)? Or doing the same with the Actor model (ala > Erlang/BEAM processes)? > > Those are *very* interesting language design concepts, and something > where offering a compelling alternative to the current practices of > emulating them with threads or coroutines pretty much requires the > property of zero-copy ownership transfer. > But subinterpreters (which have independent sys.modules dicts) seem a poor match for that. It feels as if you're speculating about an entirely different language here, not named Python. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
