Future of Pypy?
Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info
Mon Feb 23 21:15:46 EST 2015
Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/22/2015 11:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> If you want *CPython* to work without a GIL, well, are you volunteering
>> to do the work? It is a massive job, and the core devs aren't terribly
>> interested. Probably because they understand that the GIL is not often an
>> unsurmountable problem in real life. That brings us to the point I was
>> making: I believe, and the core devs appear to think the same, that the
>> *actual* number of people who would benefit from CPython losing the GIL
>> is not large enough to justify the work it would require.
>
> If memory serves, the first and primary point to losing the GIL is that
> single-threaded code must run just as fast (or at least close to just as
> fast) as the GIL version, and previous attempts have all badly failed that
> requisite.
That was then. Now even smartphones have multiple cores. It might be time to
reconsider. If not now, then surely by the time entry-level machines have 8
cores, the requirement that 1-core machines aren't penalized will surely be
dropped :-)
It may turn out that removing the GIL doesn't improve things *enough*, who
knows what will happen. I recall from the first attempt, back in Python 1.5
days, that there was a 40% slowdown for single core machines, a very slight
speedup for two-core, and increasing the number of cores beyond four made no
real difference. So it might turn out that "removing the GIL" is great in
theory and not so useful in practice, but I guess only time will tell.
--
Steve
More information about the Python-list
mailing list