2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters

["Martin v. Löwis"]

>>> As far as I can tell, it seems
>>> CPython's current state can't CPU bound parallelization in the same
>>> address space.
>> That's not true.
>>
> 
> Um...  So let's say you have a opaque object ref from the OS that
> represents hundreds of megs of data (e.g. memory-resident video).  How
> do you get that back to the parent process without serialization and
> IPC?

What parent process? I thought you were talking about multi-threading?

> What should really happen is just use the same address space so
> just a pointer changes hands.  THAT's why I'm saying that a separate
> address space is  generally a deal breaker when you have large or
> intricate data sets (ie. when performance matters).

Right. So use a single address space, multiple threads, and perform the
heavy computations in C code. I don't see how Python is in the way at
all. Many people do that, and it works just fine. That's what
Jesse (probably) meant with his remark

>> A c-level module, on the other hand, can sidestep/release
>> the GIL at will, and go on it's merry way and process away.

Please reconsider this; it might be a solution to your problem.

Regards,
Martin