Hi Skip,
I think the performance difference is because of different versions of
NumPy. Python 3.9 installs NumPy 1.21.3 by default for "pip install numpy".
I've only built and packaged NumPy 1.19.4 for "nogil" Python. There are
substantial performance differences between the two NumPy builds for t
I've updated the linked gists with the results from interpreters compiled
with PGO, so the numbers have slightly changed.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:04 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> It's crude, but you can take a look at `ccbench` in the Tools directory.
>
Thanks, I wasn't familiar with this. The ccbench results look pretty good:
about 18.1x speed-up on "pi calculation" and 19.8x speed-up on "regular
expression" with 2
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:58 PM Thomas Grainger wrote:
> Is D1.update(D2) still atomic with this implementation?
> https://docs.python.org/3.11/faq/library.html#what-kinds-of-global-value-mutation-are-thread-safe
>
No. For example, another thread reading from the dict concurrently may
observe a
>
> I’m unclear what is actually retried. You use this note throughout the
> document, so I think it would help to clarify exactly what is retried and
> why that solves the particular problem. I’m confused because, is it the
> refcount increment that’s retried or the entire sequence of steps (i.e
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 11:35 AM Chris Jerdonek
wrote:
> Is it also slower even when running with PYTHONGIL=1? If it could be made
> the same speed for single-threaded code when running in GIL-enabled mode,
> that might be an easier intermediate target while still adding value.
>
Running with PYT
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:04 PM Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> I notice the fb.com address -- is this a personal project or something
> facebook is working on? what's the relationship to Cinder, if any?
>
It is a Facebook project, at least in the important sense that I work on it
as an employee at Fac
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:24 PM Pablo Galindo Salgado
wrote:
> When you mean "an order of magnitude less overhead than the current
> CPython implementation" do you mean compared with the main branch? We
> recently implemented already almost everything is listed in this paragraph.
>
I think I wro
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:55 PM Daniel Pope wrote:
> I'm a novice C programmer, but I'm unsure about the safety of your
> thread-safe collections description.
>
The "list" class uses a slightly different strategy than "dict", which I
forgot about
when writing the design overview. List relies on
s of such an effort.
I'd like to start a discussion about these ideas and gauge the community's
interest in this approach to removing the GIL.
Regards,
Sam Gross
colesb...@gmail.com / sgr...@fb.com
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@pyth
10 matches
Mail list logo
