[Stackless] question on preemtive scheduling semantics
Kristján Valur Jónsson
kristjan at ccpgames.com
Wed Mar 25 10:31:47 CET 2009
There are probably two reasons for this.
a) The GIL is released for the duration of any time-consuming system call. This allows time for another thread to step in.
b) Aquiring the lock, at least on windows, will cause the thread to do a few hundred trylock spins. In fact, this should be removed on windows since it is not appropriate for a resource normally occupied...
The effect of b is probably small. But a) is real and it would suggest that a large portion of the time is spent outside of python, performing system calls, such as send() and recv(), hardly surprising.
From: stackless-bounces at stackless.com [mailto:stackless-bounces at stackless.com] On Behalf Of Mads Darø Kristensen
Sent: 25. mars 2009 08:29
To: stackless list
Subject: Re: [Stackless] question on preemtive scheduling semantics
Replying to myself here...
I have now tested it more thoroughly, and I get some surprising results
(surprising to me at least). When running a single-threaded stackless
scheduler I get the expected 100% CPU load when i try to stress it, but
running two threads on my dual core machine yielded a CPU load of
approximately 130%? What gives?
Seeing as the global interpreter lock should get in the way of utilizing
more than one core shouldn't I be seeing that using two threads (and two
schedulers) would yield the same 100% CPU load as using a single thread did?
I'm not here to start another "global interpreter lock" discussion, so
if there are obvious answers to be found in the mailing list archives
just tell me to RTFM :)
Mads Darø Kristensen wrote:
> Hi Jeff.
> Jeff Senn wrote:
>> Hm. Do you mean "thread" or "process"? Because of the GIL you cannot use
>> threads to overlap python
>> execution within one interpreter (this has been discussed at great
>> length here many times...) --
>> depending on how you are measuring, perhaps you would aspire to get
>> 200%, 400% ...etc for multicore....
> I mean thread, not process. And what I meant with 100% utilization was
> 200% for the 2-core Mac I tested on... At least that was what I thought
> I saw - I'll have to test that again some time :-)
> Best regards
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
Med venlig hilsen / Best regards
Mads D. Kristensen
Work homepage: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~madsk
Stackless mailing list
Stackless at stackless.com
More information about the Stackless