• @AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org
    0•23 days ago

    If what you said were true, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense for OP to be making a joke about how even if the source includes multi threading, all his extra cores are wasted? And make your original comment suggesting a coding issue instead of a language issue pretty misleading?

    But what you said is not correct. I just did a dumb little test

    import threading 
import time

def task(name):
  time.sleep(600)

t1 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("1",))
t2 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("2",))
t3 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("3",))

t1.start()
t2.start()
t3.start()

    And then ps -efT | grep python and sure enough that python process has 4 threads. If you want to be even more certain of it you can strace -e clone,clone3 python ./threadtest.py and see that it is making clone3 syscalls.

    • lime!English
      0•23 days ago

      is this stackless?

      anyway, that’s interesting! i was under the impression that they eschewed os threads because of the gil. i’ve learned something.

    • @anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      0•23 days ago

      Now do computation in those threads and realize that they all wait on the GIL giving you single core performance on computation and multi threaded performance on io.

      • @AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org
        0•23 days ago

        Correct, which is why before I had said

        I think OP is making a joke about python’s GIL, which makes it so even if you are explicitly multi threading, only one thread is ever running at a time, which can defeat the point in some circumstances.