On 07/18/2017 09:16 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:08:08 -0700
Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
Nick Coughlan:
-------------
It is "Nick Coghlan" not "Coughlan".
Argh. Sorry, Nick, and thank you, Antoine!
As another example of this: while trading the global import lock for
per-module locks eliminated most of the old import deadlocks, it turns
out that it *also* left us with some fairly messy race conditions and
more fragile code (I still count that particular case as a win
overall, but it definitely raises the barrier to entry for maintaining
that code).
Unfortunately, these are frequently cases where the benefits are
immediately visible (e.g. faster benchmark results, removing
longstanding limitations on user code), but the downsides can
literally take years to make themselves felt (e.g. higher defect rates
in the interpreter, subtle bugs in previously correct user code that
are eventually traced back to interpreter changes).
I'll reply here again: the original motivation for the per-module
import lock was not performance but correctness.
I meant that as an example of the dangers of increased code complexity.
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
