Will multithreading make python less popular?

Mensanator mensanator at aol.com
Fri Feb 20 00:19:51 CET 2009


On Feb 19, 2:18 pm, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> sturlamolden <sturlamol... at yahoo.no> writes:
> > Yes, the GIL prevents Python threads from being used in a certain way.
> > But do you really need to use threads like that? Or do you just think
> > you do?
>
> How old is your computer, why did you buy it, and is it the first one
> you ever owned?
>
> For most of us, I suspect, it is not our first one, and we bought it
> to get a processing speedup relative to the previous one.  If such
> speedups were useless or unimportant, we would not have blown our hard
> earned cash replacing perfectly good older hardware, so we have to
> accept the concept that speed matters and ignore those platitudes that
> say otherwise.
>
> It used to be that new computers were faster than the old ones because
> they ran at higher clock rates.  That was great, no software changes
> at all were required to benefit from the higher speed.  Now, they get
> the additional speed by having more cores.  That's better than nothing
> but making use of it requires fixing the GIL.

When I run I Python program, the Windows task manager shows both
cores running (usually a 60/40 split) for an overall 50% usage.

What am I actually seeing? If Python only uses one of the cores,
why do both light up? Is everything much more complicated (due to
OS scheduling, etc.) than the simple explanations of GIL?



More information about the Python-list mailing list