3 ms·
This suggests that the unrelated patches improve perf by 20% (0.92 * 1.20 ~= 1.10) I would love to be proven wrong but I am skeptical.
by qeternity 5y ago
This suggests that the unrelated patches improve perf by 20% (0.92 * 1.20 ~= 1.10)
I would love to be proven wrong but I am skeptical.
- selcuka 5y agoThat is already explained by the author [1]: > The resulting interpreter is about 9% faster than the no-GIL proof-of-concept (or ~19% faster than CPython 3.9.0a3). That 9% difference between the “nogil” interpreter and the stripped-down “nogil” interpreter can be thought of as the “cost” of the major GIL-removal changes. [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/18CXhDb1ygxg-YXNBJNzfzZsDFosB5e6BfnXLlejd9l0/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/18CXhDb1ygxg-YXNBJNzfzZsD...
- qeternity 5y agoThanks for this. It’s interesting because I think many people (myself included) would be far more interested in the perf patches than the GILectomy.
- guenthert 5y agoWhy? It's not like CPython is a speed daemon. I'd think there are some low hanging fruits, simply because performance is such a low priority for the maintainers. It doesn't even do TCO after all.