Why GIL? (was Re: what's the point of rpython?)

Bryan Olson fakeaddress at nowhere.org
Tue Jan 27 16:35:46 CET 2009

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Bryan Olson <fakeaddress at nowhere.org> writes:
>> An object's __dict__ slot is *not* mutable; thus we could gain some
>> efficiency by protecting the object and its dict with the same lock. I
>> do not see a major win in Mr. Banks' point that we do not need to lock
>> the object, just its dict.
> If the dict contents don't change often, maybe we could use an
> STM-like approach to eliminate locks when reading.  That would of
> course require rework to just about every C function that accesses
> Python objects.

I'm a fan of lock-free data structure and software transactional memory, 
but I'm also a realist. Heck, I'm one of this group's outspoken 
advocates of threaded architectures. Theoretical breakthroughs will 
happen, but in real world of today, threads are great but GIL-less 
Python is a loser.

Wherever Python is going, let's recognize that a scripting language that 
rocks is better than any other kind of language that sucks.


More information about the Python-list mailing list