Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.006 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'python.': 0.02; 'cpython': 0.05; 'pypy': 0.07; 'stackless': 0.09; 'url:peps': 0.09; '"for"': 0.16; 'concurrency': 0.16; 'forking': 0.16; 'gil,': 0.16; 'least,': 0.16; 'received:192.168.1.50': 0.16; 'subject: \n ': 0.16; 'subject:when': 0.16; 'url:stackless': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'url:dev': 0.17; 'url:moin': 0.17; 'all,': 0.21; 'amounts': 0.22; 'subject:will': 0.22; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.25; 'header:User- Agent:1': 0.26; 'url:wiki': 0.26; 'possibility': 0.27; 'topic': 0.27; 'integrate': 0.27; "doesn't": 0.28; 'gil': 0.29; 'occasional': 0.29; 'url:06': 0.29; 'subject:last': 0.30; 'url:2012': 0.30; 'url:python': 0.32; 'ram': 0.33; 'rid': 0.33; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.33; 'progress': 0.33; 'or,': 0.34; 'done': 0.34; 'open': 0.35; 'pm,': 0.35; 'subject:?': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'list.': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'url:org': 0.36; 'modules': 0.36; 'subject:" ': 0.36; 'ok,': 0.37; 'plans': 0.37; 'upcoming': 0.37; 'far': 0.37; 'data': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'copying': 0.38; 'mean': 0.38; 'some': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:192': 0.39; 'received:192.168': 0.40; 'received:62': 0.62; 'information': 0.63; 'url:blogspot': 0.64; 'due': 0.66; 'subject': 0.66; 'from:addr:t': 0.84; 'python-dev': 0.84; 'received:62.75': 0.84 Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 20:53:13 +0200 From: Thomas Jollans User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: when "normal" parallel computations in CPython will be implemented at last? References: <339f28b0-1305-43b9-b2b1-02e332bc80e3@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <339f28b0-1305-43b9-b2b1-02e332bc80e3@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1341168800 news.xs4all.nl 6971 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:40923 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:24747 On 07/01/2012 07:51 PM, dmitrey wrote: > hi all, > are there any information about upcoming availability of parallel > computations in CPython without modules like multiprocessing? I mean > something like parallel "for" loops, or, at least, something without > forking with copying huge amounts of RAM each time and possibility to > involve unpiclable data (vfork would be ok, but AFAIK it doesn't work > with CPython due to GIL). > > AFAIK in PyPy some progress have been done ( > http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2012/06/stm-with-threads.html ) As far as I can tell, there are no concrete plans to integrate concurrency better, or get rid of the GIL, at the moment. To quote http://wiki.python.org/moin/GlobalInterpreterLock """Getting rid of the GIL is an occasional topic on the python-dev mailing list. No one has managed it yet.""" There are currently no open or accepted PEPs on the subject of concurrency. http://www.python.org/dev/peps/ There is, of course, Stackless Python. http://stackless.com/