Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9890fd93-fd9b-4865-a01e-4cd1d558d5fc@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
References: <55942e65-e4a5-45fc-b2fc-ceb4020959dd@k4g2000vba.googlegroups.com> <qota9nhu6ag.fsf@ruuvi.it.helsinki.fi> <d54dff54-73cc-4b90-8a85-bafd5118489f@cl9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <mailman.2185.1369591777.3114.python-list@python.org> <074eac8a-1bc4-4fe0-afa9-1f52405f81d5@k3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> <CALwzidkUtWZvVvdKhU7usYw2e926z4XT_hvHTKOQbDGmmLMCQg@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.2209.1369606596.3114.python-list@python.org> <9890fd93-fd9b-4865-a01e-4cd1d558d5fc@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
From: Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 00:07:23 -0600
Subject: Re: Solving the problem of mutual recursion
To: Python <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.2233.1369634888.3114.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 43
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:46170

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Peter Brooks
<peter.h.m.brooks@gmail.com> wrote:
> This makes complete sense - any atomic action should be atomic, so two
> threads can't be doing it at the same time. They can be doing anything
> else though.
>
> If two threads create a new object at the same time, for example,
> there's potentially the problem that they'll get the same space, so
> the object will be owned by both. To prevent this, the new object call
> should be run in only one thread.
>
> If you have two objects running their methods on their own local
> variables, then there's no potential for conflict, so there's no need
> for them to be blocked.

That's not the way it works.  The CPython interpreter always runs with
the GIL held; the alternative would be to have individual mutex locks
on every Python object, which is expensive for performance due to the
reference counting mechanism.  Python functions can't release the GIL.
 C functions that are called from the interpreter *can* release the
GIL to allow concurrency, but are only permitted to do so as long as
they're not working with Python objects, e.g. waiting on I/O or
performing a long calculation on C data.

There are some more detailed slides on how the GIL works at:

http://www.dabeaz.com/python/UnderstandingGIL.pdf

Note that the description in Part 1 describes how the GIL worked prior
to Python 3.2.  The new GIL is described in Part 4, but the basic
underlying concept is the same.

> This is an interesting subject.. There's nothing wrong with the tool
> I'm using to report threads - 'Activity Monitor' is the standard
> process monitor. It counts cores as 'CPUs', which seems perfectly
> reasonable to me. As I said, other Unixes, such as HP-UX, do the same
> thing.

I have no problem with that.  It's also the default in Linux, where I
believe it is called "IRIX mode" (as opposed to "Solaris mode", where
the difference is just a factor equal to the number of cores).  What I
was questioning was whether the actual number being reported was
correct.  If it's the standard tool for the OS, then it probably is.