Em Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:53:41 -0600 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu: > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > It should be noticed that kernel-doc doesn't run in parallel. Python > > still suffers for a global big lock (called GIL). My attempts to run in > > parallel actually made kernel-doc slower, but this is changing: the > > next Python version is planning to get rid of GIL. So, maybe within > > a year we can re-add the patches to run it in parallel. > > I certainly wouldn't want to discourage work in this area, but I do > wonder if it would be worth the trouble; kernel-doc is nowhere near > being the bottleneck in this whole process. I know kernel-doc is not a bottleneck. When I wrote it, I wrote to run in parallel. The original patches supported even both multiprocess and multithread, and had command line parameters to adjust, but I got disappointed with results, so I dropped it. Re-adding shoudn't be hard, as I tried to ensure that this would work since the beginning. This is, btw, one of the main reasons why I created a separate class to handle files and used an interactor for file names: the entire parser logic is confined to one instance per file and multiple instances can run in parallel. This way concurrent.futures can distribute files to different processes and threads. > Now, if you could > multi-thread the Sphinx HTML builder... Agreed. I suspect that, if Sphinx can run without GIL, in the future, we'll have huge performance gains, specially on machines with multiple CPU cores. Thanks, Mauro
