[Python-Dev] GIL, Python 3, and MP vs. UP
mwh at python.net
Mon Sep 19 22:12:05 CEST 2005
Martin Blais <blais at furius.ca> writes:
> On 9/18/05, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>> On 9/17/05, John J Lee <jjl at pobox.com> wrote:
>> > c. Since time is needed to iron out bugs (and perhaps also to reimplememt
>> > some pieces of code "from scratch"), very early in the life of Python 3
>> > seems like the least-worst time to begin work on such a change.
>> > I realize that not all algorithms (nor all computational problems) scale
>> > well to MP hardware. Is it feasible to usefully compile both MP and a UP
>> > binaries from one Python source code base?
>> That's an understatement. I expect that *most* problems (even most
>> problems that we will be programming 10-20 years from now) get little
>> benefit out of MP.
> Some are saying it won't be a matter of choice if we want to get the
> software to run faster (you know, that "MORE MORE MORE!" thing we all
> seem to suffer from):
People have been saying this for _years_, and it hasn't happened yet.
This time around it's a bit more convincing, but I reserve the right
to remain a touch skeptical.
> The Free Lunch Is Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software
> Herb Sutter
> March 2005
I was disappointed that that article (hey, it was the only issue of
ddj I've ever actually bought! :) didn't consider any concurrency
models other than shared memory threading.
. <- the point your article -> .
|------------------------- a long way ------------------------|
-- Christophe Rhodes, ucam.chat
More information about the Python-Dev