data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/78d01/78d0121057ef01b75628908c4ad7e1d6fcbadc34" alt=""
Hi Eric, Did you try to take into account the envisioned project for adding a "complete" GC and removing the GIL? Regards Antoine. On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:12:07 -0700 Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm still hoping to land a per-interpreter GIL for 3.11. There is still a decent amount of work to be done but little of it will require solving any big problems:
* pull remaining static globals into _PyRuntimeState and PyInterpreterState * minor updates to PEP 554 * finish up the last couple pieces of the PEP 554 implementation * maybe publish a companion PEP about per-interpreter GIL
There are also a few decisions to be made. I'll open a couple of other threads to get feedback on those. Here I'd like your thoughts on the following:
Do we need a PEP about per-interpreter GIL?
I haven't thought there would be much value in such a PEP. There doesn't seem to be any decision that needs to be made. At best the PEP would be an explanation of the project, where:
* the objective has gotten a lot of support (and we're working on addressing the concerns of the few objectors) * most of the required work is worth doing regardless (e.g. improve runtime init/fini, eliminate static globals) * the performance impact is likely to be a net improvement * it is fully backward compatible and the C-API is essentially unaffected
So the value of a PEP would be in consolidating an explanation of the project into a single document. It seems like a poor fit for a PEP.
(You might wonder, "what about PEP 554?" I purposefully avoided any discussion of the GIL in PEP 554. It's purpose is to expose subinterpreters to Python code.)
However, perhaps I'm too close to it all. I'd like your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks!
-eric