How to go about. On read/write locks
Diez B. Roggisch
deets at nospam.web.de
Mon Apr 6 23:27:13 CEST 2009
> Python's approach with the GIL is both reasonable and disappointing.
> Reasonable because I understand how it can make things easier for its
> internals. Disappointing because it means that standard python cannot
> take advantage of the parallelism that can more and more often be
> afforded by today's computers. I.e. I found only recently, almost by
> chance, that my wife's laptop has not one but two processors, even
> though it isn't a particularly high-end computer. I now understand
> that OS-level threading does use them both, but I understand that the
> GIL effectively prevents parallel operations. (Am I understanding
Not entirely. Yes, if your application is CPU-bound. No if it's
IO-bound. And a lot of people think that threads are actually the wrong
approach for concurrency anyway, so with python2.6 there comes the
multiprocessing-module that lets you use the full capacity of your CPUs.
> I do not completely understand your statement in the context of my
> original example though, the shared dictionary. As the GIL is released
> every X bytecode operations surely it can happen that as the
> dictionary is iterated through, i.e. in a for/in loop, a different
> thread might change it, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
> The GIL wouldn't be able to prevent this, wouldn't it?
You didn't give a concrete usage scenario for your shared dict - but I
assumed that by reading and writing you meant
mydict[key] = value
value = mydict[key]
which are both atomic through the GIL.
More complex operations - such as iteration - might need more coarse
More information about the Python-list