3 ms·
> which noticeably impacts single-threaded performance, which is of major import. 1) I don't buy this a priori. Almost everybody who removed a gigantic lock s
by bsder 3y ago
> which noticeably impacts single-threaded performance, which is of major import.
1) I don't buy this a priori. Almost everybody who removed a gigantic lock suddenly realizes that there was more contention than they thought and that atomizing it made performance improve.
2) Had Python bitten the bullet and removed the GIL back at Python 3.0, the performance would likely already be back to normal or better. You can't optimize hypothetically. Optimization on something like Python is an accumulation of lots of small wins.
- masklinn 3y ago> I don't buy this a priori. You don’t have to buy anything, that’s been the result of every attempt so far and a big reason for their rejection. The latest effort only gained some traction because the backers also did optimisation work which compensated (and then was merged separately). > Almost everybody who removed a gigantic lock See that’s the issue with your response, you’re not actually reading the comment you’re replying to. And the “almost” is a big tell. > suddenly realizes that there was more contention than they thought and that atomizing it made performance improve. There is no contention on the gil in single threaded workloads. > Had Python bitten the bullet and removed the GIL back at Python 3.0 It would have taken several more years and been completely DOA.