Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #16811
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Somebody Got It The Wrong Way Round ... |
| Date | 2025-07-16 23:21 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <1059c6n$vpn2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
From
<https://www.infoworld.com/article/4018856/4-tips-for-getting-started-with-free-threaded-python.html>:
As an example, if you have a job that writes a lot of files,
having each job in its own thread is less effective if each job
also writes the file. This is because writing files is an
inherently serial operation. A better approach would be to divide
jobs across threads and use one thread for writing to disk. As
each job finishes, it sends work to the disk-writing job. This
way, jobs don’t block each other and aren’t themselves blocked by
file writing.
Actually, blocking system calls (whether for I/O or something else)
only block the current thread. So having each thread do its own I/O
should be faster than funnelling it all through one bottleneck thread.
If you don’t want your worker threads blocked waiting for I/O to
complete, then each worker context can be a pair of threads: one does
the CPU-intensive stuff, while the other handles the blocking I/O.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
Somebody Got It The Wrong Way Round ... Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-16 23:21 +0000 Re: Somebody Got It The Wrong Way Round ... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-18 02:14 -0400
csiph-web