• Lexinonymous@fediverser.communick.devB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually, it’s even worse than that. The GIL protects prevents you from trashing your interpreter, but you still have to synchronize your Python code or else you get race conditions.

    • besil@fediverser.communick.devB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      False. As for now, you can just use multiprocessing instead of multi threading to achieve parallel computation (with a little of overhead though)

      • backSEO_@fediverser.communick.devB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A little overhead? Each interpreter spawned adds 50mb.of RAM used. Doesn’t sound like much, but on an 8 core, 16 thread CPU, spawning 15 additional interpreters, eats up nearly a gig of ram on its own. On Windows (unsure about Linux/Mac), it also adds time to startup, and you get way less computational power out of it than using something else. Idk if anyone else does this, but I start the processes on program startup so they’re always available.

        It’s likely the end consumer doesn’t know/doesn’t care about the slight performance gains, especially when competitors in my niche get away with crap like “your search is in queue, we’ll email you when you’re done”, but I find that abhorrent and lazy and all around stupid, so I take all performance advantages I can get.

      • jaerie@fediverser.communick.devB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        They said multithreading can’t do parallel computing, what part of that is false?

        Besides, going to multiprocessing isn’t just “a little overhead” you need to switch from a shared data model to inter process communication, which isn’t always trivial

        • secretaliasname@fediverser.communick.devB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is a common dev story in python: Hrmm this is running slow, maybie I can use threads to make it go faster. Weird, not faster, discovers GIL. Maybe I can use multiprocessing. Hrmm this sucks I have to use IPC and serialize things to pass them. Hrmm faster but still weirdly slow. Proceeds to spend a ton of time optimizing IPC and figuring how to get code in multiple processes to communicate.

          • ajslater@fediverser.communick.devB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            GIL removal solves the relatively small problem of, “I have a big workload but not so big that I need multiple nodes.”

            Small workloads are fine and don’t need free threading. Large workloads are going to use IPC anyway to coordinate across hundreds of nodes.

            Today you must use the IPC overhead approach for medium workloads and it is some extra work. But then if your application grows you’ve already done much of the scaling part.