On 2009-08-19, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
If they are number crunchers (CPU-bound) and don't make use of
binary extension libraries that release the GIL (for the most common
Python implementation), they'll run faster being called in sequence
since
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Robert Dailey wrote:
Really, all I'm trying to do is the most trivial type of
parallelization. Take two functions, execute them in parallel. This
type of parallelization is called embarrassingly parallel, and is
the simplest
On Tuesday 18 August 2009 22:45:38 Robert Dailey wrote:
Really, all I'm trying to do is the most trivial type of
parallelization. Take two functions, execute them in parallel. This
type of parallelization is called embarrassingly parallel, and is
the simplest form. There are no dependencies
Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za writes:
Just use thread then and thread.start_new_thread.
It just works.
The GIL doesn't apply to threads made like that?!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 18 Aug, 11:19, Robert Dailey rcdai...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking for a way to parallelize my python script without using
typical threading primitives. For example, C++ has pthreads and TBB to
break things into tasks.
In C++, parallelization without typical threading primitives usually
Hendrik van Rooyen wrote:
On Tuesday 18 August 2009 22:45:38 Robert Dailey wrote:
Really, all I'm trying to do is the most trivial type of
parallelization. Take two functions, execute them in parallel. This
type of parallelization is called embarrassingly parallel, and is
the simplest form.
On 18 Aug, 13:45, Robert Dailey rcdai...@gmail.com wrote:
Really, all I'm trying to do is the most trivial type of
parallelization. Take two functions, execute them in parallel. This
type of parallelization is called embarrassingly parallel, and is
the simplest form. There are no dependencies
sturlamolden wrote:
cut
The human brain is bad at detecting
computational bottlenecks though. So it almost always pays off to
write everything in Python first, and use the profiler to locate the
worst offenders.
+1 QOTW
--
MPH
http://blog.dcuktec.com
'If consumed, best digested with added
On 19 Aug, 05:16, sturlamolden sturlamol...@yahoo.no wrote:
You should know about the GIL. It prevents multiple threads form using
the Python interpreter simultaneously. For parallel computing, this is
a blessing and a curse. Only C extensions can release the GIL; this
includes I/0 routines
On Wednesday 19 August 2009 10:13:41 Paul Rubin wrote:
Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za writes:
Just use thread then and thread.start_new_thread.
It just works.
The GIL doesn't apply to threads made like that?!
The GIL does apply - I was talking nonsense again. Misread the OP's
On 19 Aug, 05:27, Dave Angel da...@ieee.org wrote:
With the current GIL implementation, for two CPU-bound tasks, you either
do them sequentially, or make a separate process.
I'd also like to add that most compute-bound code should be delegated
to specialized C libraries, many of which are
On 19 Aug, 05:34, Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za wrote:
The GIL does apply - I was talking nonsense again. Misread the OP's
intention.
It depends on what the OP's functions doStuff1 and doStuff2
actually do. If they release the GIL (e.g. make I/O calls) it does not
apply. The GIL
On 18 Aug, 11:41, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
I think the canonical answer is to use the threading module or (preferably)
the multiprocessing module, which is new in Py2.6.
http://docs.python.org/library/threading.htmlhttp://docs.python.org/library/multiprocessing.html
Both
On 19 Aug, 05:27, Dave Angel da...@ieee.org wrote:
But if you do it that way, it's slower than sequential. And if you have
a multi-core processor, or two processors, or ... then it gets much
slower yet, and slows down other tasks as well.
With the current GIL implementation, for two
I'm looking for a way to parallelize my python script without using
typical threading primitives. For example, C++ has pthreads and TBB to
break things into tasks. I would like to see something like this for
python. So, if I have a very linear script:
doStuff1()
doStuff2()
I can parallelize it
Robert Dailey wrote:
I'm looking for a way to parallelize my python script without using
typical threading primitives. For example, C++ has pthreads and TBB to
break things into tasks. I would like to see something like this for
python. So, if I have a very linear script:
doStuff1()
On Aug 18, 11:19 am, Robert Dailey rcdai...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking for a way to parallelize my python script without using
typical threading primitives. For example, C++ has pthreads and TBB to
break things into tasks. I would like to see something like this for
python. So, if I have a
On Aug 18, 3:41 pm, Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net
wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:19 am, Robert Dailey rcdai...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking for a way to parallelize my python script without using
typical threading primitives. For example, C++ has pthreads and TBB to
break things
18 matches
Mail list logo
