Mailing List Archive: Python: Dev

Point of building without threads?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

solipsis at pitrou

May 7, 2012, 12:49 PM

Post #1 of 23 (504 views)
Permalink

Point of building without threads?

Hello,

I guess a long time ago, threading support in operating systems wasn't
very widespread, but these days all our supported platforms have it.
Is it still useful for production purposes to configure
--without-threads? Do people use this option for something else than
curiosity of mind?

Regards

Antoine.

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

victor.stinner at gmail

May 7, 2012, 3:25 PM

Post #2 of 23 (477 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

> I guess a long time ago, threading support in operating systems wasn't
> very widespread, but these days all our supported platforms have it.
> Is it still useful for production purposes to configure
> --without-threads? Do people use this option for something else than
> curiosity of mind?

At work, I'm working on embedded systems (television set top boxes)
with a Linux kernel with the GNU C library, and we do use threads!

I'm not sure that Python runs on slower/smaller systems because they
have other constrains like having very few memory, maybe no MMU and
not using the glibc but µlibc for example.

There is the "python-on-a-chip" project. It is written from scratch
and is very different from CPython. I don't think that it uses
threads.
http://code.google.com/p/python-on-a-chip/

Victor
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

dirkjan at ochtman

May 7, 2012, 11:49 PM

Post #3 of 23 (472 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis [at] pitrou> wrote:
> I guess a long time ago, threading support in operating systems wasn't
> very widespread, but these days all our supported platforms have it.
> Is it still useful for production purposes to configure
> --without-threads? Do people use this option for something else than
> curiosity of mind?

Gentoo (of course) allows users to build Python without threads; I'm
not aware of anyone depending on that, but I sent out a quick question
to gentoo-dev.

Cheers,

Dirkjan
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

kristjan at ccpgames

May 8, 2012, 2:27 AM

Post #4 of 23 (472 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

>
> I guess a long time ago, threading support in operating systems wasn't very
> widespread, but these days all our supported platforms have it.
> Is it still useful for production purposes to configure --without-threads? Do
> people use this option for something else than curiosity of mind?

For EVE Online, we started out not using threads but relying solely on tasklets.
We only added thread supports perhaps five years ago. Other embedded projects _might_ be omitting thread support for a leaner interpreter, but I'm not sure the difference is that large.
K

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

stefan at bytereef

May 8, 2012, 10:40 AM

Post #5 of 23 (471 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

Antoine Pitrou <solipsis [at] pitrou> wrote:
> I guess a long time ago, threading support in operating systems wasn't
> very widespread, but these days all our supported platforms have it.
> Is it still useful for production purposes to configure
> --without-threads? Do people use this option for something else than
> curiosity of mind?

_decimal is about 12% faster without threads, because the expensive
thread local context can be disabled.

On OpenBSD threading leads to strange problems like delayed signals
in the REPL http://bugs.python.org/issue8714 . Without threads these
problems don't occur.

Stefan Krah

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

solipsis at pitrou

May 8, 2012, 11:13 AM

Post #6 of 23 (471 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 19:40:32 +0200
Stefan Krah <stefan [at] bytereef> wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou <solipsis [at] pitrou> wrote:
> > I guess a long time ago, threading support in operating systems wasn't
> > very widespread, but these days all our supported platforms have it.
> > Is it still useful for production purposes to configure
> > --without-threads? Do people use this option for something else than
> > curiosity of mind?
>
> _decimal is about 12% faster without threads, because the expensive
> thread local context can be disabled.

If you cached the last thread id along with the corresponding context,
perhaps it could speed things up in most scenarios?

Regards

Antoine.

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

stefan at bytereef

May 9, 2012, 2:26 AM

Post #7 of 23 (466 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

Antoine Pitrou <solipsis [at] pitrou> wrote:
> > _decimal is about 12% faster without threads, because the expensive
> > thread local context can be disabled.
>
> If you cached the last thread id along with the corresponding context,
> perhaps it could speed things up in most scenarios?

Nice. This reduces the speed difference to about 4%!

Stefan Krah

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

solipsis at pitrou

May 9, 2012, 3:18 AM

Post #8 of 23 (466 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 11:26:29 +0200
Stefan Krah <stefan [at] bytereef> wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou <solipsis [at] pitrou> wrote:
> > > _decimal is about 12% faster without threads, because the expensive
> > > thread local context can be disabled.
> >
> > If you cached the last thread id along with the corresponding context,
> > perhaps it could speed things up in most scenarios?
>
> Nice. This reduces the speed difference to about 4%!

Note that you don't need the actual thread id, the Python thread state
is sufficient: PyThreadState_GET should be a simply variable lookup in
release builds.

Regards

Antoine.

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

stefan at bytereef

May 10, 2012, 11:23 AM

Post #9 of 23 (464 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

Antoine Pitrou <solipsis [at] pitrou> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012 11:26:29 +0200
> Stefan Krah <stefan [at] bytereef> wrote:
> > Antoine Pitrou <solipsis [at] pitrou> wrote:
> > > > _decimal is about 12% faster without threads, because the expensive
> > > > thread local context can be disabled.
> > >
> > > If you cached the last thread id along with the corresponding context,
> > > perhaps it could speed things up in most scenarios?
> >
> > Nice. This reduces the speed difference to about 4%!
>
> Note that you don't need the actual thread id, the Python thread state
> is sufficient: PyThreadState_GET should be a simply variable lookup in
> release builds.

I've tried both ways now and the speed gain is roughly the same.

Perhaps the interpreter as a whole is slightly faster --without-threads?
That would explain the remaining speed difference of 4%.

Stefan Krah

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

solipsis at pitrou

May 10, 2012, 11:41 AM

Post #10 of 23 (465 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:23:08 +0200
Stefan Krah <stefan [at] bytereef> wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou <solipsis [at] pitrou> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 May 2012 11:26:29 +0200
> > Stefan Krah <stefan [at] bytereef> wrote:
> > > Antoine Pitrou <solipsis [at] pitrou> wrote:
> > > > > _decimal is about 12% faster without threads, because the expensive
> > > > > thread local context can be disabled.
> > > >
> > > > If you cached the last thread id along with the corresponding context,
> > > > perhaps it could speed things up in most scenarios?
> > >
> > > Nice. This reduces the speed difference to about 4%!
> >
> > Note that you don't need the actual thread id, the Python thread state
> > is sufficient: PyThreadState_GET should be a simply variable lookup in
> > release builds.
>
> I've tried both ways now and the speed gain is roughly the same.
>
> Perhaps the interpreter as a whole is slightly faster --without-threads?
> That would explain the remaining speed difference of 4%.

It may be. Can you try other benchmarks?

Regards

Antoine.

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

stefan at bytereef

May 10, 2012, 11:43 AM

Post #11 of 23 (466 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

Stefan Krah <stefan [at] bytereef> wrote:
> > > Nice. This reduces the speed difference to about 4%!
> >
> > Note that you don't need the actual thread id, the Python thread state
> > is sufficient: PyThreadState_GET should be a simply variable lookup in
> > release builds.
>
> I've tried both ways now and the speed gain is roughly the same.
>
> Perhaps the interpreter as a whole is slightly faster --without-threads?
> That would explain the remaining speed difference of 4%.

Actually this seems to be the case: In the benchmark floats are also
about 3% faster without threads.

Stefan Krah

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

yury at shurup

Jan 8, 2013, 1:28 AM

Post #12 of 23 (313 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 21:49 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> I guess a long time ago, threading support in operating systems wasn't
> very widespread, but these days all our supported platforms have it.
> Is it still useful for production purposes to configure
> --without-threads? Do people use this option for something else than
> curiosity of mind?

I hope that the intent behind asking this question was more of being
curious, rather then considering dropping --without-threads:
unfortunately, multithreading was, still is and probably will remain
troublesome on many supercomputing platforms.

Often, once a new supercomputer is launched, as a developer you get a
half-baked C/C++ compiler with threading support broken to the point
when it's much easier to not use it altogether [*] rather than trying to
work around the compiler quirks.

Of course, the situation improves over the lifetime of each particular
computer, but usually, when everything is halfway working, the computer
itself becomes obsolete, so there is not much point in using it anymore.

Moreover, these days there is a clear trend towards OpenMP, so it has
become even harder to pressure the manufacturers to fix threads, because
they have 101 argument why you should port your code to OpenMP instead.

HTH.

[*]: Another usual candidates for being broken beyond repair are the
linker, especially when it comes to shared libraries, and support for
advanced C++ language features, such as templates...

--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

solipsis at pitrou

Jan 8, 2013, 2:29 AM

Post #13 of 23 (312 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

Le Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:28:25 +0100,
"Yury V. Zaytsev" <yury [at] shurup> a écrit :

> On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 21:49 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > I guess a long time ago, threading support in operating systems
> > wasn't very widespread, but these days all our supported platforms
> > have it. Is it still useful for production purposes to configure
> > --without-threads? Do people use this option for something else than
> > curiosity of mind?
>
> I hope that the intent behind asking this question was more of being
> curious, rather then considering dropping --without-threads:
> unfortunately, multithreading was, still is and probably will remain
> troublesome on many supercomputing platforms.

I was actually asking this question in the hope that we could perhaps
simplify our range of build options (and the corresponding C #define's),
but you made a convincing point that we should keep the
--without-threads option :-)

Thank you

Antoine.

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

trent at snakebite

Jan 8, 2013, 6:02 AM

Post #14 of 23 (312 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

[. Weird, I can't see your original e-mail Antoine; hijacking Yury's
reply instead. ]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 01:28:25AM -0800, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 21:49 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > I guess a long time ago, threading support in operating systems wasn't
> > very widespread, but these days all our supported platforms have it.
> > Is it still useful for production purposes to configure
> > --without-threads? Do people use this option for something else than
> > curiosity of mind?

All our NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD slaves use --without-thread.
Without it, they all wedge in some way or another. (That should be
fixed*/investigated, but, until then, yeah, --without-threads allows
for a slightly more useful (but still broken) test suite run on
these platforms.)

[*]: I suspect the problem with at least OpenBSD is that their
userland pthreads implementation just doesn't cut it; there
is no hope for the really technical tests that poke and
prod at things like correct signal handling and whatnot.

Trent.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

solipsis at pitrou

Jan 8, 2013, 6:09 AM

Post #15 of 23 (312 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

Le Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:02:00 -0500,
Trent Nelson <trent [at] snakebite> a écrit :
> [. Weird, I can't see your original e-mail Antoine; hijacking
> Yury's reply instead. ]

The original e-mail is quite old (it was sent in May) :-)

Regards

Antoine.

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

stefan at bytereef

Jan 8, 2013, 6:15 AM

Post #16 of 23 (314 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

Trent Nelson <trent [at] snakebite> wrote:
> All our NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD slaves use --without-thread.
> Without it, they all wedge in some way or another. (That should be
> fixed*/investigated, but, until then, yeah, --without-threads allows
> for a slightly more useful (but still broken) test suite run on
> these platforms.)
>
> [*]: I suspect the problem with at least OpenBSD is that their
> userland pthreads implementation just doesn't cut it; there
> is no hope for the really technical tests that poke and
> prod at things like correct signal handling and whatnot.

For OpenBSD the situation should be fixed in the latest release:

http://www.openbsd.org/52.html#new

I haven't tried it myself though.

Stefan Krah

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

trent at snakebite

Jan 8, 2013, 7:15 AM

Post #17 of 23 (312 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 06:15:45AM -0800, Stefan Krah wrote:
> Trent Nelson <trent [at] snakebite> wrote:
> > All our NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD slaves use --without-thread.
> > Without it, they all wedge in some way or another. (That should be
> > fixed*/investigated, but, until then, yeah, --without-threads allows
> > for a slightly more useful (but still broken) test suite run on
> > these platforms.)
> >
> > [*]: I suspect the problem with at least OpenBSD is that their
> > userland pthreads implementation just doesn't cut it; there
> > is no hope for the really technical tests that poke and
> > prod at things like correct signal handling and whatnot.
>
> For OpenBSD the situation should be fixed in the latest release:
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/52.html#new
>
> I haven't tried it myself though.

Interesting! I'll look into upgrading the existing Snakebite
OpenBSD slaves (they're both at 5.1).

Trent.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

victor.stinner at gmail

Jan 8, 2013, 12:16 PM

Post #18 of 23 (313 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

2013/1/8 Trent Nelson <trent [at] snakebite>:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 06:15:45AM -0800, Stefan Krah wrote:
>> Trent Nelson <trent [at] snakebite> wrote:
>> > All our NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD slaves use --without-thread.
>> > Without it, they all wedge in some way or another. (That should be
>> > fixed*/investigated, but, until then, yeah, --without-threads allows
>> > for a slightly more useful (but still broken) test suite run on
>> > these platforms.)
>> >
>> > [*]: I suspect the problem with at least OpenBSD is that their
>> > userland pthreads implementation just doesn't cut it; there
>> > is no hope for the really technical tests that poke and
>> > prod at things like correct signal handling and whatnot.
>>
>> For OpenBSD the situation should be fixed in the latest release:
>>
>> http://www.openbsd.org/52.html#new
>>
>> I haven't tried it myself though.
>
> Interesting! I'll look into upgrading the existing Snakebite
> OpenBSD slaves (they're both at 5.1).

Oooh yes, many bugs has been fixed by the implementation of threads in
the kernel (rthreads in OpenBSD 5.2)!

Just one recent example. On OpenBSD 4.9, FD_CLOEXEC doesn't work with
fork()+exec() whereas it works with exec(); on OpenBSD 5.2, both cases
work as expected.
http://bugs.python.org/issue16850#msg179294

Victor
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

yury at shurup

Jan 8, 2013, 1:01 PM

Post #19 of 23 (310 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 15:09 +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> The original e-mail is quite old (it was sent in May) :-)

I'm sorry about that! I've just stumbled upon this thread and got scared
that --without-threads might be going away soon...

We've just been porting Python to a new supercomputer, so that we can
use Python interface to our simulation software and, at the moment, this
is the only way we can get it to work due to the deficiencies of the
available software stack (which will hopefully be fixed in the future).

Anyways, the point is that it's a recurrent problem, and we hit it every
single time with each new machine, so I hope you can understand why I
decided to post, even though the original message appeared back in May.

--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

ncoghlan at gmail

Jan 10, 2013, 5:54 AM

Post #20 of 23 (309 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Yury V. Zaytsev <yury [at] shurup> wrote:
> Anyways, the point is that it's a recurrent problem, and we hit it every
> single time with each new machine, so I hope you can understand why I
> decided to post, even though the original message appeared back in May.

Thank you for speaking up. Easier porting to new platforms is
certainly one of the reasons we keep that capability, and it's helpful
to have it directly confirmed that there *are* users out there that
benefit from it :)

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan [at] gmail | Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

tjreedy at udel

Jan 10, 2013, 3:53 PM

Post #21 of 23 (309 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

On 1/10/2013 8:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Yury V. Zaytsev <yury [at] shurup> wrote:
>> Anyways, the point is that it's a recurrent problem, and we hit it every
>> single time with each new machine, so I hope you can understand why I
>> decided to post, even though the original message appeared back in May.
>
> Thank you for speaking up. Easier porting to new platforms is
> certainly one of the reasons we keep that capability, and it's helpful
> to have it directly confirmed that there *are* users out there that
> benefit from it :)

If there is not currently a comment in the setup code explaining this,
perhaps it would be a good idea, lest some future developer be tempted
to delete the option.

--
Terry Jan Reedy

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

stefan at bytereef

Feb 16, 2013, 1:57 AM

Post #22 of 23 (220 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

Yury V. Zaytsev <yury [at] shurup> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 21:49 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > I guess a long time ago, threading support in operating systems wasn't
> > very widespread, but these days all our supported platforms have it.
> > Is it still useful for production purposes to configure
> > --without-threads? Do people use this option for something else than
> > curiosity of mind?
>
> I hope that the intent behind asking this question was more of being
> curious, rather then considering dropping --without-threads:
> unfortunately, multithreading was, still is and probably will remain
> troublesome on many supercomputing platforms.
>
> Often, once a new supercomputer is launched, as a developer you get a
> half-baked C/C++ compiler with threading support broken to the point
> when it's much easier to not use it altogether [*] rather than trying to
> work around the compiler quirks.

Out of curiosity: Do these incomplete compilers have any problem with either
stdint.h or static inline functions in header files?

Stefan Krah

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

stefan_ml at behnel

Feb 16, 2013, 6:17 AM

Post #23 of 23 (217 views)
Permalink

Re: Point of building without threads? [In reply to]

Yury V. Zaytsev, 08.01.2013 10:28:
> Moreover, these days there is a clear trend towards OpenMP, so it has
> become even harder to pressure the manufacturers to fix threads, because
> they have 101 argument why you should port your code to OpenMP instead.

I can't see OpenMP being an *alternative* to threads. You can happily
acquire and release the GIL from OpenMP threads, for example.

Stefan

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads