[Stackless] question on preemtive scheduling semantics
Mads Darø Kristensen
madsdk at gmail.com
Wed Mar 25 10:55:50 CET 2009
Thank you for the explanation. That does make sense, because when I
measure the time spent performing the tasklets it takes more than twice
as long when performing two (identical) tasklets, so the added 30% is
definitely not being spent on my number crunching tasklets.
I'll be reimplementing my execution environment using processes anytime
Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
> 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.
> -----Original Message-----
> 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 :)
> Best regards
> 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
More information about the Stackless