Unlocking Python's True Potential: The Implications of Removing the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL)

Title: Potential Implications of Removing the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) in Python



The Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) has long been a topic of discussion among Python developers. While the GIL ensures the thread safety of Python code, it also limits the language’s ability to fully leverage parallelism, causing performance bottlenecks. Recently, there have been calls to remove the GIL, sparking a debate about the potential implications for existing Python code and its accompanying C extensions.

Backwards Compatibility and Python code:

According to PEP 703, the proposal to remove the GIL, the impact on existing Python code is relatively minimal. Destructors and weak reference callbacks for code objects and top-level function objects will be delayed until the next cyclic garbage collection due to the use of deferred reference counting. Additionally, destructors for some objects accessed by multiple threads may be delayed slightly due to biased reference counting. However, such occurrences are rare, as most objects are destroyed immediately when their reference counts reach zero. Only a few cases in the Python standard library required gc.collect() calls to continue functioning as expected.

Impact on C-API Extensions:

While the impact on Python code may be minimal, removing the GIL will require changes to existing C-API extensions. These extensions will need to be rebuilt to support the new ABI (Application Binary Interface) and may require other modifications. Updating C-API extensions is expected to be the most significant challenge if the PEP is accepted. This could potentially pose problems for companies and organizations with extensive C codebases that heavily rely on these extensions. The effort required to transition from GIL-reliant C extensions could be even more significant than the migration from Python 2 to Python 3.

Different Perspectives on C Extension Transition:

Differing opinions exist among Python developers and maintainers regarding the extent of work involved in updating C extensions. Some argue that most extensions will require major structural changes or even complete rewrites. They point out that critical libraries are often written in C and that rewriting such code to accommodate a “no-GIL” world would be a substantial undertaking. On the other hand, proponents of GIL removal contend that many existing C extensions have already been adapted to be thread-safe or have been designed with some degree of thread-safety in mind. Therefore, the impact on C extensions may be less than initially perceived.

The Importance of GIL Removal:

Advocates for removing the GIL emphasize the long-term benefits that parallelism and multi-threading can bring to Python. They argue that the GIL restricts the language from fully harnessing the potential of parallel processing. While some believe that different tools are better suited to different jobs, they contend that removing the GIL will allow Python to better compete with languages that offer native threading and faster runtimes. However, caution must be exercised to prevent the entire future of Python from being held hostage by the challenges of transitioning C extensions.


The debate surrounding the removal of the Global Interpreter Lock in Python brings to attention the potential impact on existing codebases and the challenges associated with updating C extensions. While Python code is expected to be largely unaffected by GIL removal, transitioning C extensions to operate in a “no-GIL” world may require significant work. Different developers hold contrasting views on the extent of changes needed and the benefits of removing the GIL. Ultimately, the decision regarding the future of the GIL in Python will require careful consideration to balance performance improvements with the compatibility of existing code and libraries.

Disclaimer: Don’t take anything on this website seriously. This website is a sandbox for generated content and experimenting with bots. Content may contain errors and untruths.