Idea for removing the GIL...
aahz at pythoncraft.com
Mon Feb 28 21:02:31 EST 2011
In article <b8112a95-0c8d-41b7-9e42-805e63a78b1c at o32g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Carl Banks <pavlovevidence at gmail.com> wrote:
>The real reason they never replaced the GIL is that fine-grained
>locking is expensive with reference counting. The only way the cost
>of finer-grained locking would be acceptable, then, is if they got rid
>of the reference counting altogether, and that was considered too
>drastic a change.
...especially given CPython's goal of easy integration with C libraries.
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"Programming language design is not a rational science. Most reasoning
about it is at best rationalization of gut feelings, and at worst plain
wrong." --GvR, python-ideas, 2009-03-01
More information about the Python-list