Possible suggestion for removing the GIL

[Prateek]

On Sep 13, 1:36 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de... at nospam.web.de> wrote:
> Prateek wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Recently there was some talk on removing the GIL and even the BDFL has
> > written a blog post on it.
> > I was trying to come up with a scalable and backwards compatible
> > approach for how to do it.
>
> > I've put my thoughts up in a blog post - and I'd really like to hear
> > what the community thinks of it.
> > Mainly it revolves around dedicating one core for executing
> > synchronized code and doing context switches instead of acquiring/
> > releasing locks.
>
> Where is the gain? Having just one core doesn't give you true parallelism -
> which is the main reason behind the cries for a GIL-less Python.
>
> Diez

Diez,

I was talking of dedicating one core for synchronized code. In the
case of a threaded app on two cores, one core would be dedicated to
synchronized code and the other would run non-sync code (effectively
behaving like a single threaded machine). However, on machines with n
cores where n > 2 cores, we would have n-1 cores available to run code
in parallel.

Prateek