2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters

Rhamphoryncus rhamph at gmail.com
Wed Oct 29 20:59:32 CET 2008


On Oct 29, 7:20 am, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> On 28 Okt, 21:03, Rhamphoryncus <rha... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * get a short-term bodge that works, like hacking the 3rd party
> > library to use your shared-memory allocator.  Should be far less work
> > than hacking all of CPython.
>
> Did anyone come up with a reason why shared memory couldn't be used
> for the purpose described by the inquirer? With the disadvantages of
> serialisation circumvented, that would leave issues of contention, and
> on such matters I have to say that I'm skeptical about solutions which
> try and make concurrent access to CPython objects totally transparent,
> mostly because it appears to be quite a lot of work to get right (as
> POSH illustrates, and as your own safethread work shows), and also
> because systems where contention is spread over a large "surface" (any
> object can potentially be accessed by any process at any time) are
> likely to incur a lot of trouble for the dubious benefit of being
> vague about which objects are actually being shared.

I believe large existing libraries were the reason.  Thus my
suggestion of the evil fork+mmap abuse.



More information about the Python-list mailing list