Message 104613 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	nirai
Recipients	DazWorrall, aconrad, alex, andrix, brian.curtin, carljm, coderanger, cool-RR, dabeaz, djc, donaldjeo, durin42, eric.araujo, eric.smith, flox, gregory.p.smith, jcea, jhylton, karld, kevinwatters, konryd, larry, loewis, mahmoudimus, movement, neologix, nirai, pitrou, rcohen, rh0dium, tarek, thouis, ysj.ray
Date	2010-04-30.08:24:02
SpamBayes Score	0.2150228
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1272615845.67.0.502026603127.issue7946@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
Dave, The behavior of your patch on Windows XP/2003 (and earlier) might be related to the way Windows boosts thread priority when it is signaled. Try to increase priority of monitor thread and slice size. Another thing to look at is how to prevent Python CPU bound threads from (starving) messing up scheduling of threads of other processes. Maybe increasing slice significantly can help in this too (50ms++ ?). XP/NT/CE scheduling and thread boosting affect all patches and the current GIL undesirably (in different ways). Maybe it is possible to make your patch work nicely on these systems: http://www.sriramkrishnan.com/blog/2006/08/tale-of-two-schedulers-win_115489794858863433.html Vista and Windows 7 involve CPU cycle counting which results in more sensible scheduling: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2007.02.vistakernel.aspx

Dave, 

The behavior of your patch on Windows XP/2003 (and earlier) might be related to the way Windows boosts thread priority when it is signaled. 

Try to increase priority of monitor thread and slice size. Another thing to look at is how to prevent Python CPU bound threads from (starving) messing up scheduling of threads of other processes. Maybe increasing slice significantly can help in this too (50ms++ ?).

XP/NT/CE scheduling and thread boosting affect all patches and the current GIL undesirably (in different ways). Maybe it is possible to make your patch work nicely on these systems:
http://www.sriramkrishnan.com/blog/2006/08/tale-of-two-schedulers-win_115489794858863433.html

Vista and Windows 7 involve CPU cycle counting which results in more sensible scheduling:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2007.02.vistakernel.aspx

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2010-04-30 08:24:07	nirai	set	recipients: + nirai, loewis, jhylton, gregory.p.smith, jcea, pitrou, movement, larry, eric.smith, kevinwatters, tarek, djc, karld, carljm, coderanger, durin42, eric.araujo, alex, andrix, konryd, brian.curtin, flox, DazWorrall, cool-RR, rh0dium, rcohen, dabeaz, mahmoudimus, aconrad, ysj.ray, neologix, thouis, donaldjeo
2010-04-30 08:24:05	nirai	set	messageid: <1272615845.67.0.502026603127.issue7946@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-04-30 08:24:03	nirai	link	issue7946 messages
2010-04-30 08:24:02	nirai	create