Unlocking Python's Cores:Energy Implications of Removing the GIL

Re:Unlocking Python's Cores:Energy Implications of Removing ... by p_m_c on Monday March 09, 2026 @11:06AM (#47310089)

> Similarly, workloads where threads frequently access and modify the same objects show reduced improvements or even degradation due to lock contention.

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but you deal with this with lock-free data structures, immutable data, siloing data per thread, fine-grain locks, etc.

Basically you avoid locks as much as possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unlocking Python's Cores:Energy Implications of Removing ... by nijave on Monday March 09, 2026 @01:09PM (#47311934)

It'd be nice if Python std lib had more thread safe primitives/structures (compared to something like Java where there's tons of thread safe data structures)

Imo the GIL was used as an excuse for a long time to avoid building those out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unlocking Python's Cores:Energy Implications of Removing ... by liuliu on Monday March 09, 2026 @04:20PM (#47314884)

> It'd be nice if Python std lib had more thread safe primitives/structures (compared to something like Java where there's tons of thread safe data structures)

Hence why basic Python structures under free-threaded Python are all thread-safe structures, and explains why they are slower than GIL-variant.

[ Parent | on HN ]