Idea for removing the GIL...
Stefan Behnel
stefan_ml at behnel.de
Tue Feb 8 12:05:33 EST 2011
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Tue Feb 8 12:05:33 EST 2011
- Previous message (by thread): Idea for removing the GIL...
- Next message (by thread): Idea for removing the GIL...
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roy Smith, 08.02.2011 17:52: > Robert Kern wrote: > >> Unlike a UNIX fork, CreateProcess() does not have the same copy-on-write >> semantics for initializing the memory of the new process. If you want to pass >> data to the children, the data must be pickled and sent across the process >> boundary. He's not saying that multiprocessing isn't useful at all on >> Windows, just less useful for the scenarios he is considering here. > > Amen, brother! I used to work on a project that had a build system > which was very fork() intensive (lots of little perl and shell scripts > driven by make). A full system build on a linux box took 30-60 minutes. > Building the same code on windows/cygwin took about 12 hours. Identical > hardware (8-core, 16 gig Dell server, or something like that). > > As far as we could tell, it was entirely due to how bad Windows was at > process creation. Unlikely. Since you mention cygwin, it was likely due to the heavy lifting cygwin does in order to emulate fork() on Windows. http://www.cygwin.com/faq/faq-nochunks.html#faq.api.fork Stefan
- Previous message (by thread): Idea for removing the GIL...
- Next message (by thread): Idea for removing the GIL...
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list