[Python-ideas] Exposing CPython's subinterpreter C-API in the stdlib.

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Fri May 26 11:28:20 EDT 2017


On 26 May 2017 at 23:49, Stephan Houben <stephanh42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> As far as I understand, the (to me) essential difference between your
> approach and my proposal is that:
>
> Approach 1 (PEP-489):
>    * Single (global) GIL.
>    * PyObject's may be shared across interpreters (zero-copy transfer)
>
> Approach 2 (mine)
>    * Per-interpreter GIL.
>    * PyObject's must be copied across interpreters.
>
> To me, the per-interpreter GIL is the essential "target" I am aiming for,
> and I am willing to sacrifice the zero-copy for that.

Err, no - I explicitly said that assuming the rest of idea works out
well, we'd eventually like to move to a tiered model where the GIL
becomes a read/write lock. Most code execution in subinterpreters
would then only need a read lock on the GIL, and hence could happily
execute code in parallel with other subinterpreters running on other
cores.

However, that aspect of the idea is currently just hypothetical
handwaving that would need to deal with (and would be informed by) the
current work happening with respect to the GILectomy, as it's not
particularly interesting as far as concurrency modeling is concerned.

By contrast, being able to reliably model Communicating Sequential
Processes in Python without incurring any communications overhead
though (ala goroutines)? Or doing the same with the Actor model (ala
Erlang/BEAM processes)?

Those are *very* interesting language design concepts, and something
where offering a compelling alternative to the current practices of
emulating them with threads or coroutines pretty much requires the
property of zero-copy ownership transfer.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia


More information about the Python-ideas mailing list