On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm a bit worried with our current benchmarks state. We have around 4
> > benchmarks that had reasonable slowdowns recently and we keep putting
> > new features
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm a bit worried with our current benchmarks state. We have around 4
> benchmarks that had reasonable slowdowns recently and we keep putting
> new features that speed up other things. How can we even say we have
> actually fixed
On Jul 16, 2011 5:13 AM, "Armin Rigo" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, VanL wrote:
> > I think that a better (read: closer term, and more likely to be
performant)
> > answer is to create multiple interpreters, *each with their own GIL,
each in
> > their own thread,* and connec
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, VanL wrote:
> I think that a better (read: closer term, and more likely to be performant)
> answer is to create multiple interpreters, *each with their own GIL, each in
> their own thread,* and connect them via channels (essentially a pair of
> queues).
That
