News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Gilectomy – How's It Going [video]. Parent comment

Re:The Gilectomy – How's It Going [video] by marvy on Sunday May 28, 2017 @04:52AM (#14433592)
What? No! Multithreaded programs should run faster on 8 cores than on one core. That's not very realistic for single-threaded programs, in any language.

I could be wrong, but I think Py2.7 is about the same speed on multicore vs 1 core. Where did you get that idea?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Gilectomy – How's It Going [video] by diek on Sunday May 28, 2017 @05:23AM (#14433673)
Python 2.7 has terrible thrashing in the way the GIL is acquired that is exacerbated as more threads are used. Dave Beazley has given great talks with the technical details: http://www.dabeaz.com/GIL/
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Gilectomy – How's It Going [video] by alfanerd on Sunday May 28, 2017 @09:38AM (#14434331)
Some years ago I wrote pyworks (www.github.com/pylots/pyworks), a proposal for async objects (inspired by ABCL and cooC (Concurrent Object Oriented-C, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220178380_Concurren...)

The testcase is 100 threads sending 1000 messages in to each other in a ring. On a 8-core Mac Jython and IronPython performs better than on 1-core, but Python 2.7 performs so badly that it never finishes.

The ideal scenario is probably that the CPython interpreter starts one thread per core running as many coroutines in parallel as possible, but that looks like a long way away for Python

[ Parent | on HN ]