Idea for removing the GIL...

Aahz aahz at
Mon Feb 28 21:02:31 EST 2011

In article <b8112a95-0c8d-41b7-9e42-805e63a78b1c at>,
Carl Banks  <pavlovevidence at> 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           <*>

"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 mailing list