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/

Reply via email to