On 10/27/2016 02:55 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:33 PM, jmp <jeanmic...@sequans.com> wrote:
On 10/27/2016 01:43 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
Blocked threads don't consume CPU time. Why would they?
ChrisA
Agreed. My point being that a blocked thread achieve nothing, except
parallelism, i.e. other threads can be processed.
To be more specific, if you compute factorial(51354) in a thread, it will
still require approx. the same amount of CPU clocks than in a main thread
(probably slightly more due to the scheduler overhead).
jm
Of course. But the OP wants to do blocking calls, which don't cost you
like that. So it's fine.
ChrisA
Sure but the OP is very focus on performance(that's a mistake imo).
"Because I don't want to drop python, I want to learn the best technique
to use to have the best performance. "
I just wanted to point that using thread implements parallelism, not
performance. And that's probably what its gui needs. And that's probably
why using a higher level API would have been acceptable.
JM
Best performance is achieved by sacrificing a lot in python. A better
technique than polling threads would be sleeping thread where the thread
is put to hold until a hardware interrupt wakes up the thread.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
