4 ms·

I like the GIL and would prefer it not be removed, regardless of any impact on performance. It's a powerful assumption for both python code and extensions to b

I like the GIL and would prefer it not be removed, regardless of any impact on performance. It's a powerful assumption for both python code and extensions to be able to make that only one thread will be executing in the interpreter at a time. Knowing it, you can do a lot of things with a much lower cognitive burden. I tend to think through a problem initially in a non-concurrent way and then think "ok, but there's concurrency to think of too, so how is this all affected?". With the GIL you usually don't need to go far into that if at all, and that's useful. That doesn't mean I don't approve of concurrency. I use lots of languages, and a need for proper concurrency is one of the major reasons I might avoid python as a tool for a particular task. But there are lots of languages, and python became the popular tool it is with the GIL. If python were to embrace concurrency in the interpreter its nature would change, and I think my toolbox would lose something valuable. That said, I'm not worried. CPython exists in a cloud of extensions developed against its C API, and these are heavily reliant on the GIL. Refcounting isn't even the start of the problems you would need to solve in order to remove it and not have everyone just move to a fork that still has it. I'll be astonished if anyone manages to pull it off.

arc-in-space 5y ago
I'm confused. The article mentions that Python's data structures would be made thread-safe, which sounds like there is no intention to change concurrency semantics. How does the presence of the GIL help? Can you elaborate what would be lost by removing it?
- masklinn 5y ago
  A C extension which does not release the gil does not have to worry about concurrent execution and can trivially work in global space.
- nitred 5y ago
  Can't speak for the OP but here's what I think they may have meant and my intuitions agree with them as well. In python I mostly use threads for non-CPU intensive tasks like IO or timers or event handling and I rarely implement these myself. However for CPU intensive tasks, there's rarely any point to having 10 threads in Python because they all have to run on one core because of the GIL. Therefore when working with python the GIL indirectly lets me never have to think about writing concurrent CPU intensive code AND I know others wouldn't do it too because it wouldn't make sense most of the time. This is leads to a significant reduction in cognitive load when thinking about solving a problem in Python. And it isn't about thread-safety but that in concurrent code I have to worry how other threads might change the values of shared variables and global variables of which there are many. Instead the GIL lets me think synchronously, write synchronous code and when I needed to parallelize my work I use multiprocessing where my synchronous code and assumptions work perfectly because each process has its own GIL and I explicitly pass shared variables to each of the processes. I don't know enough to comment on the good or the bad of GIL. Just my two cents about how I think about code with Python in it's current state.
sherjilozair 5y ago
You know it’s trivial to add a global lock to any concurrent program, right? What would you lose if other people started writing performant code?
- omnicognate 5y ago
  This comment under the article gives an example: https://lwn.net/Articles/872961/ https://lwn.net/Articles/872961/. Several other comments there also discuss this problem. Unless an extension explicitly releases the GIL it's not possible for the state of the interpreter to change during execution of its methods. That's an invariant that extensions rely on implicitly for safety in many ways and it's hard to imagine how one could make them safe without significant work on all of those extensions. I, for one, own extensions that would require complex, structural, performance-affecting changes. And it's worth noting that "safety" here is not just safety from incorrect behaviour, it's safety from memory corruption, crashes and security issues. Edit: Also, just to note - there is nowhere extension authors can add a global lock that would solve this problem. It would require top-level python programs to add the necessary locking, and the consequences of them not doing so would typically include crashes and severe security issues. The only place it's "trivial" to add a global lock to avoid these problems is the interpreter. A Global Interpreter Lock, if you will. But, of course, if you think the GIL can be removed in such a way that these issues aren't a real problem, have at it. Plenty of people will thank you. Edit 2: Also worth explicitly mentioning: when it comes to avoiding memory corruption, extension authors can't make any assumptions about what their python callers will do. I (and any responsible extension author) go to significant lengths to ensure my extensions can't crash regardless of how they're used from python. One of my extensions, for example, is a (private, in-house) interop mechanism that allows python users to access an API developed in C#. If the GIL is removed and somebody goes and writes a bit of threaded python code that modifies the contents of some object while my extension is accessing it, without the necessary locking, and this results in memory corruption, the blame will rightly fall on my extension. Python isn't C, and the people writing it (unless they're using ctypes or whatever) don't expect to be able to cause memory corruption by making elementary programming errors.
  - aidos 5y ago

arc-in-space 5y ago

I'm confused. The article mentions that Python's data structures would be made thread-safe, which sounds like there is no intention to change concurrency semantics. How does the presence of the GIL help? Can you elaborate what would be lost by removing it?

masklinn 5y ago
A C extension which does not release the gil does not have to worry about concurrent execution and can trivially work in global space.
nitred 5y ago
Can't speak for the OP but here's what I think they may have meant and my intuitions agree with them as well. In python I mostly use threads for non-CPU intensive tasks like IO or timers or event handling and I rarely implement these myself. However for CPU intensive tasks, there's rarely any point to having 10 threads in Python because they all have to run on one core because of the GIL. Therefore when working with python the GIL indirectly lets me never have to think about writing concurrent CPU intensive code AND I know others wouldn't do it too because it wouldn't make sense most of the time. This is leads to a significant reduction in cognitive load when thinking about solving a problem in Python. And it isn't about thread-safety but that in concurrent code I have to worry how other threads might change the values of shared variables and global variables of which there are many. Instead the GIL lets me think synchronously, write synchronous code and when I needed to parallelize my work I use multiprocessing where my synchronous code and assumptions work perfectly because each process has its own GIL and I explicitly pass shared variables to each of the processes. I don't know enough to comment on the good or the bad of GIL. Just my two cents about how I think about code with Python in it's current state.

sherjilozair 5y ago

You know it’s trivial to add a global lock to any concurrent program, right? What would you lose if other people started writing performant code?

omnicognate 5y ago
This comment under the article gives an example: https://lwn.net/Articles/872961/ https://lwn.net/Articles/872961/. Several other comments there also discuss this problem. Unless an extension explicitly releases the GIL it's not possible for the state of the interpreter to change during execution of its methods. That's an invariant that extensions rely on implicitly for safety in many ways and it's hard to imagine how one could make them safe without significant work on all of those extensions. I, for one, own extensions that would require complex, structural, performance-affecting changes. And it's worth noting that "safety" here is not just safety from incorrect behaviour, it's safety from memory corruption, crashes and security issues. Edit: Also, just to note - there is nowhere extension authors can add a global lock that would solve this problem. It would require top-level python programs to add the necessary locking, and the consequences of them not doing so would typically include crashes and severe security issues. The only place it's "trivial" to add a global lock to avoid these problems is the interpreter. A Global Interpreter Lock, if you will. But, of course, if you think the GIL can be removed in such a way that these issues aren't a real problem, have at it. Plenty of people will thank you. Edit 2: Also worth explicitly mentioning: when it comes to avoiding memory corruption, extension authors can't make any assumptions about what their python callers will do. I (and any responsible extension author) go to significant lengths to ensure my extensions can't crash regardless of how they're used from python. One of my extensions, for example, is a (private, in-house) interop mechanism that allows python users to access an API developed in C#. If the GIL is removed and somebody goes and writes a bit of threaded python code that modifies the contents of some object while my extension is accessing it, without the necessary locking, and this results in memory corruption, the blame will rightly fall on my extension. Python isn't C, and the people writing it (unless they're using ctypes or whatever) don't expect to be able to cause memory corruption by making elementary programming errors.
- aidos 5y ago