python / python/cpython

`concurrent.interpreters.Queue` performance is bound to the polling delay

Open
#143,017 7 comments 2 reactions 1 assignee View on GitHub

@prithviraj-chaudhuri is already working on this.

Since Dec 28, 2025.

stdlib topic-subinterpreters type-bug type-feature
Dominant language
Python
Stars
77.2k
Forks
35.9k
PR merge metrics
PR metrics pending

Description

Bug report

Bug description:

Currently, all blocking operations in concurrent.interpreters.Queue work via polling. In general, this approach is satisfactory for an initial implementation (unfortunately, this is a cancer of the asynchronous world), but it suffers from one very unpleasant performance issue. Namely, the maximum number of operations per second is effectively bounded by the chosen delay:

>>> # `concurrent.interpreters.Queue`: a simple echo benchmark
>>> from concurrent import interpreters
>>> from timeit import timeit
>>> iterations = 100
>>> in_q = interpreters.create_queue()
>>> out_q = interpreters.create_queue()
>>> out_q.put(None)
>>> def echo(in_q, out_q):
...     while True:
...         out_q.put(in_q.get())
>>> interpreters.create().call_in_thread(echo, out_q, in_q)
>>> iterations / timeit(lambda: out_q.put(in_q.get()), number=iterations)
61.944790966792546  # OPS, >10 milliseconds per operation (`_delay=10 / 1000`)

It is set by the undocumented _delay parameter and is essentially a compromise between processor load and response speed (which I also described in a comment to one PR). Neither queue queues nor multiprocessing queues use polling and therefore have much higher performance:

>>> # `queue.SimpleQueue`: a simple echo benchmark
>>> from queue import SimpleQueue
>>> from threading import Thread
>>> from timeit import timeit
>>> iterations = 100_000
>>> in_q = SimpleQueue()
>>> out_q = SimpleQueue()
>>> out_q.put(None)
>>> def echo(in_q, out_q):
...     while True:
...         out_q.put(in_q.get())
>>> Thread(target=echo, args=[out_q, in_q]).start()
>>> iterations / timeit(lambda: out_q.put(in_q.get()), number=iterations)
154248.64387142067  # OPS, <10 microseconds per operation
>>> # `queue.Queue`: a simple echo benchmark
>>> from queue import Queue
>>> from threading import Thread
>>> from timeit import timeit
>>> iterations = 100_000
>>> in_q = Queue()
>>> out_q = Queue()
>>> out_q.put(None)
>>> def echo(in_q, out_q):
...     while True:
...         out_q.put(in_q.get())
>>> Thread(target=echo, args=[out_q, in_q]).start()
>>> iterations / timeit(lambda: out_q.put(in_q.get()), number=iterations)
37413.69358798779  # OPS, <50 microseconds per operation
>>> # `multiprocessing.Queue`: a simple echo benchmark
>>> from multiprocessing import Process, Queue, set_start_method
>>> from timeit import timeit
>>> set_start_method("fork")
>>> iterations = 10_000
>>> in_q = Queue()
>>> out_q = Queue()
>>> out_q.put(None)
>>> def echo(in_q, out_q):
...     while True:
...         out_q.put(in_q.get())
>>> Process(target=echo, args=[out_q, in_q]).start()
>>> iterations / timeit(lambda: out_q.put(in_q.get()), number=iterations)
13411.797245613465  # OPS, <100 microseconds per operation

I marked this as a bug, since such low performance can hardly be considered expected behavior for a lightweight alternative to multiprocessing. It would be much better to implement truly blocking behavior.

CPython versions tested on:

3.14

Operating systems tested on:

Linux

Linked PRs
  • gh-143464

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Assessment

This issue has not been assessed yet.

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.