On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:41 PM Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > > * the naive implementation shows a 4% slowdown > > Without understanding all the benefits, this seems a bit too much for > me. 2% would be much better.
Yeah, we consider 4% to be too much. 2% would be great. Performance-neutral would be even better, of course. :) > > * we have a number of strategies that should reduce that penalty > > I would like to see that before approving the PEP. I expect it would be enough to show where things stand with benchmark results. It did not seem like the actual mitigation strategies were as important, so I opted to leave them out to avoid clutter. Plus it isn't clear yet what approaches will help the most, nor how much we can win back. So I didn't want to distract with hypotheticals. If it's important I can add that in. > > * without immortal objects, the implementation for per-interpreter GIL > > will require a number of non-trivial workarounds > > To me, that says to speed up immortality first. Agreed. > > That last one is particularly meaningful to me since it means we would > > definitely miss the 3.11 feature freeze. > > 3 1/2 months from now. > > > With immortal objects, 3.11 would still be in reach. > > Is it worth trying to rush it a bit? I'd rather not rush this. I'm saying that, for per-interpreter GIL, 3.11 is within reach without rushing if we have immortal objects. Without them, 3.11 is realistic without rushing things. -eric _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/CYPYFPFGB7ONMVSTDHFDKZL26E7KG6MO/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
