On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > On 5/24/2011 8:25 AM, Sturla Molden wrote: > >> Artur Siekielski is not talking about cache locality, but copy-on-write >> fork on Linux et al. >> >> When reference counts are updated after forking, memory pages marked >> copy-on-write are copied if they store reference counts. And then he >> quickly runs out of memory. He wants to put reference counts and >> PyObjects in different pages, so only the pages with reference counts >> get copied. >> >> I don't think he cares about cache locality at all, but the rest of us >> do :-) > > It seems clear that separating reference counts from objects satisfies a > specialized need and should be done in a spedial, patched version of CPython > rather than the general distribution.
I'm not sure I agree, especially given that the classical answer to GIL woes has been to tell people to fork() themselves. There has to be a lot of code out there that would benefit from this. Geremy Condra _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
