On 10/26/2011 11:45 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 26 October 2011 08:56, Stefan Behnel<stefan...@behnel.de> wrote:
Greg Ewing, 26.10.2011 00:27:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
I'd gladly take a factor two (or even four) slowdown of CPython code any
day to get rid of the GIL :-). The thing is, sometimes one has 48 cores
and consider a 10x speedup better than nothing...
Another thing to consider is that locking around refcount
changes may not be as expensive in typical Cython code as
it is in Python.
The trouble with Python is that you can't so much as scratch
your nose without touching a big pile of ref counts. But
if the Cython code is only dealing with a few Python objects
and doing most of its work at the C level, the relative
overhead of locking around refcount changes may not be
significant.
So it may be worth trying the strategy of just acquiring
the GIL whenever a refcount needs to be changed in a nogil
section, and damn the consequences.
Hmm, interesting. That would give new semantics to "nogil" sections,
basically:
"""
You can do Python interaction in nogil code, however, this will slow down
your code. Cython will generate C code to acquire and release the GIL around
any Python interaction that your code performs, thus serialising any calls
into the CPython runtime. If you want to avoid this serialisation, use
"cython -a" to find out where Python interaction happens and use static
typing to let Cython generate C code instead.
"""
In other words: "with gil" sections hold the GIL by default and give it away
on explicit request, whereas "nogil" sections have the GIL released by
default and acquire it on implicit need.
The advantage over object level locking is that this does not increase the
in-memory size of the object structs, and that it works with *any* Python
object, not just extension types with a compile time known type.
I kind of like that.
My problem with that is that if there if any other python thread,
you're likely just going to sleep for thousands of CPU cycles as that
thread will keep the GIL. Doing this implicitly for operations with
such overhead would be unacceptable. I think writing 'with gil:' is
fine, it's the performance that's the problem in the first place which
prevents you from doing that, not the 9 characters you need to type.
You are sure about the complete impossibility of having a seperate
thread doing all INCREFs and DECREFs posted to it asynchronously (in the
order they are posted), without race conditions?
What I would like is having Cython infer whether the GIL is needed for
a function, and mark it "implicitly nogil", so it can be called from
nogil contexts without actually having to declare it nogil. This would
only work for non-extern things, and you would still need to declare
it nogil in your pxd if you want to export it. Apparently many users
(even those that have used Cython quite a bit) are confused with what
nogil on functions actually does (or they are not even aware it
exists).
There's a long thread by me and Robert (and some of Stefan) on this from
a couple of months back, don't know if you read it. You could support
exports across pxds as well. Basically for *every* cdef function, export
two function pointers:
1) To a wrapper to be called if you hold the GIL (outside nogil sections)
2) To a wrapper to be called if you don't hold the GIL, or don't know
whether you hold the GIL (the wrapper can acquire the GIL if needed)
Taking the address of a function (for passing to C, e.g.) would give you
the one that can be called without holding the GIL.
The implications should hopefully be getting rid of "with gil" and
"nogil" on function declarations entirely.
Dag Sverre
_______________________________________________
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
