I just killed GIL!!!

sturlamolden sturlamolden at yahoo.no
Thu Apr 17 19:33:26 CEST 2008


On Apr 17, 7:16 pm, Jonathan Gardner <jgard... at jonathangardner.net>
wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:19 am, sturlamolden <sturlamol... at yahoo.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> > An there you have the answer. It's really very simple :-)
>
> That's an interesting hack.
>
> Now, how do the processes communicate with each other without stepping
> on each other's work and without using a lock?

Why can't I use a lock?

There is a big difference between fine-grained locking on each object
(cf. Java) and a global lock for everything (cf. CPython's GIL). Fine-
grained locking for each object has been tried, and was found to be a
significant slow down in the single-threaded case.

What if we just do fine grained locking on objects that need to be
shared?

What if we accept that "shared" objects are volatile and may suddenly
disappear (like a weakref), and trap that as an exception?






More information about the Python-list mailing list