Parallelization on muli-CPU hardware?

Aahz aahz at pythoncraft.com
Thu Oct 7 19:02:17 CEST 2004


In article <1glatga.8upk9brifr2qN%aleaxit at yahoo.com>,
Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote:
>Aahz <aahz at pythoncraft.com> wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that CPython doesn't have thread-local storage.
>
>In 2.4 it does -- see threading.local documentation at
><http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/lib/module-threading.html> (and
>even better, the docstring of the new _threading_local module).

IIUC, that's not thread-local storage in the sense that I'm using the
term (and which I believe is standard usage).  Values created with
thread-local storage module are still allocated on the heap, and it's
still possible to use introspection to access thread-local data in
another thread.

Don't get me wrong; I think it's a brilliant addition to Python.
Unfortunately, it doesn't help with the real issues with making the
Python core free-threaded (or anything more fine-grained than the GIL).
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

WiFi is the SCSI of the 21st Century -- there are fundamental technical
reasons for sacrificing a goat.  (with no apologies to John Woods)



More information about the Python-list mailing list