Kill GIL (was Re: multi threading in multi processor (computer))

[Aahz]

In article <7xr7jlwieq.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin  <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>
>The day is coming when even cheap computers have multiple cpu's.
>See hyperthreading and the coming multi-core P4's, and the finally
>announced Cell processor.
>
>Conclusion: the GIL must die.

It's not clear to what extent these processors will perform well with
shared memory space.  One of the things I remember most about Bruce
Eckel's discussions of Java and threading is just how broken Java's
threading model is in certain respects when it comes to CPU caches
failing to maintain cache coherency.  It's always going to be true that
getting fully scaled performance will require more CPUs with non-shared
memory -- that's going to mean IPC with multiple processes instead of
threads.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm probably one of the bigger boosters of threads.
But it bugs me when people think that getting rid of the GIL will be the
Holy Grail of Python performance.  No way.  No how.  No time.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"The joy of coding Python should be in seeing short, concise, readable
classes that express a lot of action in a small amount of clear code -- 
not in reams of trivial code that bores the reader to death."  --GvR