3 ms·
I find that difficult to believe, as the "What's New in Python 3.11" release notes (https://docs.python.org/3.11/whatsnew/3.11.html https://docs.python.org/3.11
by benhoyt 4y ago
I find that difficult to believe, as the "What's New in Python 3.11" release notes (https://docs.python.org/3.11/whatsnew/3.11.html https://docs.python.org/3.11/whatsnew/3.11.html) don't mention "GIL" or "Global Interpreter Lock" at all. A change of that magnitude would definitely get a mention there.
- aix1 4y agoAnd also the very first item of the 3.12 plan (the subject of this post) is about tweaking the GIL.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- germandiago 4y agoNo, it has not been done. I published a post in Reddit related to this experiment that you can check here if you want: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/q8n508/prototype_gilless_cpython_shows_nearly_20x/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/q8n508/prototy...
- BerislavLopac 4y agoIsn't this exactly what I wrote?
- chrisseaton 4y agoThe GIL removal was implemented, apart from the GIL removal part?
- BerislavLopac 4y agoNo. Sam Gross’s PoC included a number of optimisations besides the gilectomy. It were those optimisations that made it faster, while the GIL removal slowed it down again; so only the optimisations were implemented.
- DonHopkins 4y agoWhen performing gilectomization, it's better to undergilectomize than overgilectomize.
- _joel 4y agoIt's ok, you can get a reverse gilectomy
- remedan 4y agoSome of "Sam Gross’s proof of concept" was implemented of which the GIL removal was only a part. The rest was performance improvements.
- coldtea 4y agoYes. The "GIL removal" umbrella proposal was two-fold. It included (a) removing the GIL, (b) several optimizations to handle some issues with GIL being removed and offset the GIL removal overhead (due to more frequent lock checks, etc). The GIL-removal assisting changes and optimizations were merged, but the GIL removal was not.