https://lwn.net/Articles/872869/
The no-GIL version is actually about 8% slower on single-threaded performance than the GIL version, but the author bundled in some unrelated performance improvements that make the no-GIL version overall 10% faster than today's Python.
> though, as Guido van Rossum noted, the Python developers could always just take the performance improvements without the concurrency work and be even faster yet.
Why be 10% faster single threaded when you can be 20% faster single threaded!
I would love to be proven wrong but I am skeptical.
> The resulting interpreter is about 9% faster than the no-GIL proof-of-concept (or ~19% faster than CPython 3.9.0a3). That 9% difference between the “nogil” interpreter and the stripped-down “nogil” interpreter can be thought of as the “cost” of the major GIL-removal changes.
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/18CXhDb1ygxg-YXNBJNzfzZsD...
It’s interesting because I think many people (myself included) would be far more interested in the perf patches than the GILectomy.