2.6, 3.0, and truly independent intepreters
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Sun Oct 26 05:57:07 EDT 2008
>>> 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
More information about the Python-list
mailing list