Description

assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2019-06-15.13:15:17.301>
labels = ['extension-modules', 'type-feature', '3.9']
title = 'concurrent.futures.InterpreterPoolExecutor'
updated_at = <Date 2020-08-05.21:42:09.359>
user = 'https://github.com/crusaderky'

activity = <Date 2020-08-05.21:42:09.359>
actor = 'jakirkham'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Extension Modules']
creation = <Date 2019-06-15.13:15:17.301>
creator = 'crusaderky'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 37293
keywords = []
message_count = 3.0
messages = ['345681', '346225', '346226']
nosy_count = 4.0
nosy_names = ['eric.snow', 'davin', 'crusaderky', 'jakirkham']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = 'needs patch'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue37293'
versions = ['Python 3.9']

Activity

1. crusaderky commented on Jun 15, 2019

   

   crusaderkymannequin

   on Jun 15, 2019

   MannequinAuthor

   More actions

   As one of the logical consequences to PEP-554, it would be neat to have a concurrent.futures.InterpreterPoolExecutor.

   I wrote the initial code at https://github.com/crusaderky/subinterpreters_tests - currently missing unit tests and pickle5 buffers support.

   If everybody is happy with the design, I'll start working on a PR as soon as the GIL becomes per-interpreter (it's kinda pointless before that).
2. crusaderky

   added

   3.9 (EOL)end of lifeend of life

   extension-modulesC modules in the Modules dirC modules in the Modules dir

   type-featureA feature request or enhancementA feature request or enhancement

   on Jun 15, 2019
3. ericsnowcurrently commented on Jun 21, 2019

   

   ericsnowcurrently

   on Jun 21, 2019

   Member

   More actions

   FWIW, performance benefits when subinterpreters stop sharing the GIL are not the only benefit. In fact, PEP-554 is specifically written to avoid that consideration, focusing on the benefits of the concurrency model (i.e. CSP). So I wouldn't call this pointless even without per-interpreter GIL. :)

   (Of course, this *would* be blocked on acceptance and implementation of PEP-554.)
4. ericsnowcurrently commented on Jun 21, 2019

   

   ericsnowcurrently

   on Jun 21, 2019

   Member

   More actions

   @davin, we've spoken before about something similar for multiprocessing, IIRC. :)
5. ezio-melotti

   transferred this issue fromon Apr 10, 2022
6. vstinner

   added

   topic-multiprocessing

   on Jun 6, 2022
7. serhiy-storchaka

   added this to Multiprocessing issueson Sep 10, 2023
8. jakirkham commented on Oct 22, 2024

   

   jakirkham

   on Oct 22, 2024

   More actions

   Think this can be closed now that PR ( #124548 ) is merged
9. ericsnowcurrently commented on Oct 22, 2024

   

   ericsnowcurrently

   on Oct 22, 2024

   Member

   More actions

   Duplicate of gh-124694. (or rather, I didn't see this one when I created the other one.)
10. ericsnowcurrently

    closed this as completedon Oct 22, 2024
11. github-project-automation

    moved this to Done in Multiprocessing issueson Oct 22, 2024

Issue actions