Message131699
| Author |
loewis |
| Recipients |
brian.curtin, kristjan.jonsson, loewis, pitrou, sbt, tim.golden |
| Date |
2011年03月21日.22:52:50 |
| SpamBayes Score |
5.2190455e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<4D87D6C1.4050600@v.loewis.de> |
| In-reply-to |
<1300723028.72.0.632315996819.issue11618@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> I would still favour committing the semaphore-based version first
> (especially in 3.2), and then discussing performance improvements if
> desired.
For 3.2, I would prefer a solution that makes least changes to the
current code. This is better than fundamentally replacing the
synchronization mechanism which locks are based on.
For 3.3, I predict that any Semaphore-based version will be shortly
replaced by something "fast". Benchmarks seem to indicate that you can
get much faster than semaphores. |
|