Hacker News Reader

Comment by gshulegaard | Hacker News Reader

I am not expert, and this might be dated information, but historically there is a "thrashing" introduced between the GIL and OS scheduled threads which has surprising performance implications.

David Beazley does a much better illustrating the nuances than I ever could:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-vMVdM8s

Including a wild phenomenon where a threaded Python program's performance can degrade by increasing number of CPU cores available to a system.

Coroutines avoid this by not requiring individual thread scheduling by the OS. So they effectively release the GIL like threads on IO but avoid OS level thread switching.

View on HN

It is a bit dated (he talks about GIL improvements in 3.2), but regardless I think it only proves my point. The examples David shows are threads with zero IO unable to properly cooperate. Having threads that are mostly doing IO would actually allow them to cooperate natively by releasing GIL.

Another interesting example he talks about is IO-bound threads competing with CPU-bound threads, where CPU-threads are getting seemingly unfair advantage. But the same example would only get worse with coroutine implementation: since there's only one thread, CPU bound code would just block IO forever. IO-bound code would not just be slow, it would never execute.

What David illustrated is that GIL makes it harder to mix CPU- and IO-bound tasks in the same process. But coroutines are not the solution here. Solution is not to mix them.

Right so the GIL improvements which (probably?) made it into 3.2 solves thrashing but introduces latency during "negotiation" for the GIL.

> What David illustrated is that GIL makes it harder to mix CPU- and IO-bound tasks in the same process. But coroutines are not the solution here. Solution is not to mix them.

Which I believe is my point and why I forwarded the personal notion that there really is only two acceptable concurrency models in Python. Coroutines solve cooperative scheduling for things that can be cooperatively scheduled. Threads _could_, but in Python specifically threads are strictly inferior as they have additional overhead by nature. In slightly different phrasing, Threads can be nearly or even acceptably equivalent to coroutines in performance, but they will never be better so long as Python has a GIL.

For everything else there is Multiprocessing (for example segmenting CPU processing from IO over separate processes).

> threads are strictly inferior as they have additional overhead by nature

In terms of performance, sure. But performance is rarely your only priority. A lot of the times you already have existing code that can be switched to threads with 2 lines of code. Instead, folks choose to rewrite the whole app in asyncio/nodejs because threads aren't sexy. Hey, I've done it.

But today I'd rather have inferior working app in one day, than a completely rewritten app in a few weeks, with a mental model that half engineers don't understand and don't have experience with. Maybe in a few years you will be forced to rewrite it in asyncio. And that would be the right time to do it: when it's a business demand, not when few perfectionists are annoyed.

Very salient point.

Having used both threading and various coroutine libraries (gevent prior to asyncio and asyncio more recently), I find coroutines easier to work with in modern versions of Python. So I don't find them superior strictly on performance; I also consider them more productive due to ease of use.

But I wouldn't disagree with someone choosing to use threads because they find them easier to grok than asyncio.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com