[miohtama]

GIL or no-GIL concerns only people who want to run multicore workloads. If you are not already spending time threading or multiprocessing your code there is practically no change. Most race condition issues which you need to think are there regardless of GIL.

[fulafel]

A lot of Python usage is leveraging libraries with parallel kernels inside written in other languages. A subset of those is bottlenecked on Python side speed. A sub-subset of those are people who want to try no-GIL to address the bottleneck. But if non-GIL becomes pervasive, it could mean Python becomes less safe for the "just parallel kernels" users.

[kccqzy]

Yes sure. Thought experiment: what happens when these parallel kernels suddenly need to call back in to Python? Let's say you have a multithreaded sorting library. If you are sorting numbers then fine nothing changes. But if you are sorting objects you need to use a single thread because you need to call PyObject_RichCompare. These new parallel kernels will then try to call PyObject_RichCompare from multiple threads.

[immibis]

With the GIL, multithreaded Python gives concurrent I/O without worrying about data structure concurrency (unless you do I/O in the middle of it) - it's a lot like async in this way - data structure manipulation is atomic between "await" expressions (except in the "await" is implicit and you might have written one without realizing in which case you have a bug). Meanwhile you still get to use threads to handle several concurrent I/O operations. I bet a lot of Python code is written this way and will start randomly crashing if the data manipulation becomes non-atomic.

[rowanG077]

Afaik the only guarantee there is, is that a bytecode instruction is atomic. Built in data structures are mostly safe I think on a per operation level. But combining them is not. I think by default every few millisecond the interpreter checks for other threads to run even if there is no IO or async actions. See `sys.getswitchinterval()`

[ynik]

Bytecode instructions have never been atomic in Python's past. It was always possible for the GIL to be temporarily released, then reacquired, in the middle of operations implemented in C. This happens because C code is often manipulating the reference count of Python objects, e.g. via the `Py_DECREF` macro. But when a reference count reaches 0, this might run a `__del__` function implemented in Python, which means the "between bytecode instructions" thread switch can happen inside that reference-counting-operation. That's a lot of possible places!

Even more fun: allocating memory could trigger Python's garbage collector which would also run `__del_-` functions. So every allocation was also a possible (but rare) thread switch.

The GIL was only ever intended to protect Python's internal state (esp. the reference counts themselves); any extension modules assuming that their own state would also be protected were likely already mistaken.

[rowanG077]

Well I didn't think of this myself. It's literally what the python official doc says:

> A global interpreter lock (GIL) is used internally to ensure that only one thread runs in the Python VM at a time. In general, Python offers to switch among threads only between bytecode instructions; how frequently it switches can be set via sys.setswitchinterval(). Each bytecode instruction and therefore all the C implementation code reached from each instruction is therefore atomic from the point of view of a Python program.

https://docs.python.org/3/faq/library.html#what-kinds-of-glo...

If this is not the case please let the official python team know their documentation is wrong. It indeed does state that if Py_DECREF is invoked the bets are off. But a ton of operations never do that.

[hamandcheese]

This is the nugget of information I was hoping for. So indeed even GIL threaded code today can suffer from concurrency bugs (more so than many people here seem to think).

[OskarS]

That doesn't match with my understanding of free-threaded Python. The GIL is being replaced with fine-grained locking on the objects themselves, so sharing data-structures between threads is still going to work just fine. If you're talking about concurrency issues like this causing out-of-bounds errors:

    if len(my_list) > 5:
        print(my_list[5])

(i.e. because a different thread can pop from the list in-between the check and the print), that could just as easily happen today. The GIL makes sure that only one python interpreter runs at once, but it's entirely possible that the GIL is released and switches to a different thread after the check but before the print, so there's no extra thread-safety issue in free-threaded mode.

The problems (as I understand it, happy to be corrected), are mostly two-fold: performance and ecosystem. Using fine-grained locking is potentially much less efficient than using the GIL in the single-threaded case (you have to take and release many more locks, and reference count updates have to be atomic), and many, many C extensions are written under the assumption that the GIL exists.

[imtringued]

You start talking about GIL and then you talk about non-atomic data manipulation, which happen to be completely different things.

The only code that is going to break because of "No GIL" are C extensions and for very obvious reasons: You can now call into C code from multiple threads, which wasn't possible before, but is now. Python code could always be called from multiple python threads even in the presence of the GIL in python.

[monkeyelite]

When you launch processes to do work you get multi-core workload balancing for free.