diff --git a/Demo/threads/bug.py b/Demo/threads/bug.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..5860536f174
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Demo/threads/bug.py
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# The following self-contained little program usually freezes with most
+# threads reporting
+# 
+# Unhandled exception in thread:
+# Traceback (innermost last):
+#   File "importbug.py", line 6
+#     x = whrandom.randint(1,3)
+# AttributeError: randint
+# 
+# Here's the program; it doesn't use anything from the attached module:
+
+import thread
+
+def task():
+    global N
+    import whrandom
+    x = whrandom.randint(1,3)
+    a.acquire()
+    N = N - 1
+    if N == 0: done.release()
+    a.release()
+
+a = thread.allocate_lock()
+done = thread.allocate_lock()
+N = 10
+
+done.acquire()
+for i in range(N):
+    thread.start_new_thread(task, ())
+done.acquire()
+print 'done'
+
+
+# Sticking an acquire/release pair around the 'import' statement makes the
+# problem go away.
+# 
+# I believe that what happens is:
+# 
+# 1) The first thread to hit the import atomically reaches, and executes
+#    most of, get_module.  In particular, it finds Lib/whrandom.pyc,
+#    installs its name in sys.modules, and executes
+# 
+#         v = eval_code(co, d, d, d, (object *)NULL);
+# 
+#    to initialize the module.
+# 
+# 2) eval_code "ticker"-slices the 1st thread out, and gives another thread
+#    a chance.  When this 2nd thread hits the same 'import', import_module
+#    finds 'whrandom' in sys.modules, so just proceeds.
+# 
+# 3) But the 1st thread is still "in the middle" of executing whrandom.pyc.
+#    So the 2nd thread has a good chance of trying to look up 'randint'
+#    before the 1st thread has placed it in whrandom's dict.
+# 
+# 4) The more threads there are, the more likely that at least one of them
+#    will do this before the 1st thread finishes the import work.
+# 
+# If that's right, a perhaps not-too-bad workaround would be to introduce a
+# static "you can't interrupt this thread" flag in ceval.c, check it before
+# giving up interpreter_lock, and have IMPORT_NAME set it & restore (plain
+# clearing would not work) it around its call to import_module.  To its
+# credit, there's something wonderfully perverse about fixing a race via an
+# unprotected static <grin>.
+# 
+# as-with-most-other-things-(pseudo-)parallel-programming's-more-fun-
+#    in-python-too!-ly y'rs  - tim
+# 
+# Tim Peters   tim@ksr.com
+# not speaking for Kendall Square Research Corp
diff --git a/Demo/threads/sync.py b/Demo/threads/sync.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..53ef28eeca5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Demo/threads/sync.py
@@ -0,0 +1,428 @@
+# Defines classes that provide synchronization objects.  Note that use of
+# this module requires that your Python support threads.
+#
+#    condition()   # a POSIX-like condition-variable object
+#    barrier(n)    # an n-thread barrier
+#    event()       # an event object
+#
+# CONDITIONS
+#
+# A condition object is created via
+#   import this_module
+#   your_condition_object = this_module.condition()
+#
+# Methods:
+#   .acquire()
+#      acquire the lock associated with the condition
+#   .release()
+#      release the lock associated with the condition
+#   .wait()
+#      block the thread until such time as some other thread does a
+#      .signal or .broadcast on the same condition, and release the
+#      lock associated with the condition.  The lock associated with
+#      the condition MUST be in the acquired state at the time
+#      .wait is invoked.
+#   .signal()
+#      wake up exactly one thread (if any) that previously did a .wait
+#      on the condition; that thread will awaken with the lock associated
+#      with the condition in the acquired state.  If no threads are
+#      .wait'ing, this is a nop.  If more than one thread is .wait'ing on
+#      the condition, any of them may be awakened.
+#   .broadcast()
+#      wake up all threads (if any) that are .wait'ing on the condition;
+#      the threads are woken up serially, each with the lock in the
+#      acquired state, so should .release() as soon as possible.  If no
+#      threads are .wait'ing, this is a nop.
+#
+#      Note that if a thread does a .wait *while* a signal/broadcast is
+#      in progress, it's guaranteeed to block until a subsequenct
+#      signal/broadcast.
+#
+#      Secret feature:  `broadcast' actually takes an integer argument,
+#      and will wake up exactly that many waiting threads (or the total
+#      number waiting, if that's less).  Use of this is dubious, though,
+#      and probably won't be supported if this form of condition is
+#      reimplemented in C.
+#
+# DIFFERENCES FROM POSIX
+#
+# + A separate mutex is not needed to guard condition data.  Instead, a
+#   condition object can (must) be .acquire'ed and .release'ed directly.
+#   This eliminates a common error in using POSIX conditions.
+#
+# + Because of implementation difficulties, a POSIX `signal' wakes up
+#   _at least_ one .wait'ing thread.  Race conditions make it difficult
+#   to stop that.  This implementation guarantees to wake up only one,
+#   but you probably shouldn't rely on that.
+#
+# PROTOCOL
+#
+# Condition objects are used to block threads until "some condition" is
+# true.  E.g., a thread may wish to wait until a producer pumps out data
+# for it to consume, or a server may wish to wait until someone requests
+# its services, or perhaps a whole bunch of threads want to wait until a
+# preceding pass over the data is complete.  Early models for conditions
+# relied on some other thread figuring out when a blocked thread's
+# condition was true, and made the other thread responsible both for
+# waking up the blocked thread and guaranteeing that it woke up with all
+# data in a correct state.  This proved to be very delicate in practice,
+# and gave conditions a bad name in some circles.
+#
+# The POSIX model addresses these problems by making a thread responsible
+# for ensuring that its own state is correct when it wakes, and relies
+# on a rigid protocol to make this easy; so long as you stick to the
+# protocol, POSIX conditions are easy to "get right":
+#
+#  A) The thread that's waiting for some arbitrarily-complex condition
+#     (ACC) to become true does:
+#
+#     condition.acquire()
+#     while not (code to evaluate the ACC):
+#           condition.wait()
+#           # That blocks the thread, *and* releases the lock.  When a
+#           # condition.signal() happens, it will wake up some thread that
+#           # did a .wait, *and* acquire the lock again before .wait
+#           # returns.
+#           #
+#           # Because the lock is acquired at this point, the state used
+#           # in evaluating the ACC is frozen, so it's safe to go back &
+#           # reevaluate the ACC.
+#
+#     # At this point, ACC is true, and the thread has the condition
+#     # locked.
+#     # So code here can safely muck with the shared state that
+#     # went into evaluating the ACC -- if it wants to.
+#     # When done mucking with the shared state, do
+#     condition.release()
+#
+#  B) Threads that are mucking with shared state that may affect the
+#     ACC do:
+#
+#     condition.acquire()
+#     # muck with shared state
+#     condition.release()
+#     if it's possible that ACC is true now:
+#         condition.signal() # or .broadcast()
+#
+#     Note:  You may prefer to put the "if" clause before the release().
+#     That's fine, but do note that anyone waiting on the signal will
+#     stay blocked until the release() is done (since acquiring the
+#     condition is part of what .wait() does before it returns).
+#
+# TRICK OF THE TRADE
+#
+# With simpler forms of conditions, it can be impossible to know when
+# a thread that's supposed to do a .wait has actually done it.  But
+# because this form of condition releases a lock as _part_ of doing a
+# wait, the state of that lock can be used to guarantee it.
+#
+# E.g., suppose thread A spawns thread B and later wants to wait for B to
+# complete:
+#
+# In A:                             In B:
+#
+# B_done = condition()              ... do work ...
+# B_done.acquire()                  B_done.acquire(); B_done.release()
+# spawn B                           B_done.signal()
+# ... some time later ...           ... and B exits ...
+# B_done.wait()
+#
+# Because B_done was in the acquire'd state at the time B was spawned,
+# B's attempt to acquire B_done can't succeed until A has done its
+# B_done.wait() (which releases B_done).  So B's B_done.signal() is
+# guaranteed to be seen by the .wait().  Without the lock trick, B
+# may signal before A .waits, and then A would wait forever.
+#
+# BARRIERS
+#
+# A barrier object is created via
+#   import this_module
+#   your_barrier = this_module.barrier(num_threads)
+#
+# Methods:
+#   .enter()
+#      the thread blocks until num_threads threads in all have done
+#      .enter().  Then the num_threads threads that .enter'ed resume,
+#      and the barrier resets to capture the next num_threads threads
+#      that .enter it.
+#
+# EVENTS
+#
+# An event object is created via
+#   import this_module
+#   your_event = this_module.event()
+#
+# An event has two states, `posted' and `cleared'.  An event is
+# created in the cleared state.
+#
+# Methods:
+#
+#   .post()
+#      Put the event in the posted state, and resume all threads
+#      .wait'ing on the event (if any).
+#
+#   .clear()
+#      Put the event in the cleared state.
+#
+#   .is_posted()
+#      Returns 0 if the event is in the cleared state, or 1 if the event
+#      is in the posted state.
+#
+#   .wait()
+#      If the event is in the posted state, returns immediately.
+#      If the event is in the cleared state, blocks the calling thread
+#      until the event is .post'ed by another thread.
+#
+# Note that an event, once posted, remains posted until explicitly
+# cleared.  Relative to conditions, this is both the strength & weakness
+# of events.  It's a strength because the .post'ing thread doesn't have to
+# worry about whether the threads it's trying to communicate with have
+# already done a .wait (a condition .signal is seen only by threads that
+# do a .wait _prior_ to the .signal; a .signal does not persist).  But
+# it's a weakness because .clear'ing an event is error-prone:  it's easy
+# to mistakenly .clear an event before all the threads you intended to
+# see the event get around to .wait'ing on it.  But so long as you don't
+# need to .clear an event, events are easy to use safely.
+#
+# Tim Peters   tim@ksr.com
+# not speaking for Kendall Square Research Corp
+
+import thread
+
+class condition:
+    def __init__(self):
+        # the lock actually used by .acquire() and .release()
+        self.mutex = thread.allocate_lock()
+
+        # lock used to block threads until a signal
+        self.checkout = thread.allocate_lock()
+        self.checkout.acquire()
+
+        # internal critical-section lock, & the data it protects
+        self.idlock = thread.allocate_lock()
+        self.id = 0
+        self.waiting = 0  # num waiters subject to current release
+        self.pending = 0  # num waiters awaiting next signal
+        self.torelease = 0      # num waiters to release
+        self.releasing = 0      # 1 iff release is in progress
+
+    def acquire(self):
+        self.mutex.acquire()
+
+    def release(self):
+        self.mutex.release()
+
+    def wait(self):
+        mutex, checkout, idlock = self.mutex, self.checkout, self.idlock
+        if not mutex.locked():
+            raise ValueError, \
+                  "condition must be .acquire'd when .wait() invoked"
+
+        idlock.acquire()
+        myid = self.id
+        self.pending = self.pending + 1
+        idlock.release()
+
+        mutex.release()
+
+        while 1:
+            checkout.acquire(); idlock.acquire()
+            if myid < self.id:
+                break
+            checkout.release(); idlock.release()
+
+        self.waiting = self.waiting - 1
+        self.torelease = self.torelease - 1
+        if self.torelease:
+            checkout.release()
+        else:
+            self.releasing = 0
+            if self.waiting == self.pending == 0:
+                self.id = 0
+        idlock.release()
+        mutex.acquire()
+
+    def signal(self):
+        self.broadcast(1)
+
+    def broadcast(self, num = -1):
+        if num < -1:
+            raise ValueError, '.broadcast called with num ' + `num`
+        if num == 0:
+            return
+        self.idlock.acquire()
+        if self.pending:
+            self.waiting = self.waiting + self.pending
+            self.pending = 0
+            self.id = self.id + 1
+        if num == -1:
+            self.torelease = self.waiting
+        else:
+            self.torelease = min( self.waiting,
+                                  self.torelease + num )
+        if self.torelease and not self.releasing:
+            self.releasing = 1
+            self.checkout.release()
+        self.idlock.release()
+
+class barrier:
+    def __init__(self, n):
+        self.n = n
+        self.togo = n
+        self.full = condition()
+
+    def enter(self):
+        full = self.full
+        full.acquire()
+        self.togo = self.togo - 1
+        if self.togo:
+            full.wait()
+        else:
+            self.togo = self.n
+            full.broadcast()
+        full.release()
+
+class event:
+    def __init__(self):
+        self.state  = 0
+        self.posted = condition()
+
+    def post(self):
+        self.posted.acquire()
+        self.state = 1
+        self.posted.broadcast()
+        self.posted.release()
+
+    def clear(self):
+        self.posted.acquire()
+        self.state = 0
+        self.posted.release()
+
+    def is_posted(self):
+        self.posted.acquire()
+        answer = self.state
+        self.posted.release()
+        return answer
+
+    def wait(self):
+        self.posted.acquire()
+        while not self.state:
+            self.posted.wait()
+        self.posted.release()
+
+# The rest of the file is a test case, that runs a number of parallelized
+# quicksorts in parallel.  If it works, you'll get about 600 lines of
+# tracing output, with a line like
+#     test passed! 209 threads created in all
+# as the last line.  The content and order of preceding lines will
+# vary across runs.
+
+def _new_thread(func, *args):
+    global TID
+    tid.acquire(); id = TID = TID+1; tid.release()
+    io.acquire(); alive.append(id); \
+                  print 'starting thread', id, '--', len(alive), 'alive'; \
+                  io.release()
+    thread.start_new_thread( func, (id,) + args )
+
+def _qsort(tid, a, l, r, finished):
+    # sort a[l:r]; post finished when done
+    io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'qsort', l, r; io.release()
+    if r-l > 1:
+        pivot = a[l]
+        j = l+1   # make a[l:j] <= pivot, and a[j:r] > pivot
+        for i in range(j, r):
+            if a[i] <= pivot:
+                a[j], a[i] = a[i], a[j]
+                j = j + 1
+        a[l], a[j-1] = a[j-1], pivot
+
+        l_subarray_sorted = event()
+        r_subarray_sorted = event()
+        _new_thread(_qsort, a, l, j-1, l_subarray_sorted)
+        _new_thread(_qsort, a, j, r,   r_subarray_sorted)
+        l_subarray_sorted.wait()
+        r_subarray_sorted.wait()
+
+    io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'qsort done'; \
+                  alive.remove(tid); io.release()
+    finished.post()
+
+def _randarray(tid, a, finished):
+    io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'randomizing array'; \
+                  io.release()
+    for i in range(1, len(a)):
+        wh.acquire(); j = randint(0,i); wh.release()
+        a[i], a[j] = a[j], a[i]
+    io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'randomizing done'; \
+                  alive.remove(tid); io.release()
+    finished.post()
+
+def _check_sort(a):
+    if a != range(len(a)):
+        raise ValueError, ('a not sorted', a)
+
+def _run_one_sort(tid, a, bar, done):
+    # randomize a, and quicksort it
+    # for variety, all the threads running this enter a barrier
+    # at the end, and post `done' after the barrier exits
+    io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'randomizing', a; \
+                  io.release()
+    finished = event()
+    _new_thread(_randarray, a, finished)
+    finished.wait()
+
+    io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'sorting', a; io.release()
+    finished.clear()
+    _new_thread(_qsort, a, 0, len(a), finished)
+    finished.wait()
+    _check_sort(a)
+
+    io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'entering barrier'; \
+                  io.release()
+    bar.enter()
+    io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'leaving barrier'; \
+                  io.release()
+    io.acquire(); alive.remove(tid); io.release()
+    bar.enter() # make sure they've all removed themselves from alive
+                ##  before 'done' is posted
+    bar.enter() # just to be cruel
+    done.post()
+
+def test():
+    global TID, tid, io, wh, randint, alive
+    import whrandom
+    randint = whrandom.randint
+
+    TID = 0                             # thread ID (1, 2, ...)
+    tid = thread.allocate_lock()        # for changing TID
+    io  = thread.allocate_lock()        # for printing, and 'alive'
+    wh  = thread.allocate_lock()        # for calls to whrandom
+    alive = []                          # IDs of active threads
+
+    NSORTS = 5
+    arrays = []
+    for i in range(NSORTS):
+        arrays.append( range( (i+1)*10 ) )
+
+    bar = barrier(NSORTS)
+    finished = event()
+    for i in range(NSORTS):
+        _new_thread(_run_one_sort, arrays[i], bar, finished)
+    finished.wait()
+
+    print 'all threads done, and checking results ...'
+    if alive:
+        raise ValueError, ('threads still alive at end', alive)
+    for i in range(NSORTS):
+        a = arrays[i]
+        if len(a) != (i+1)*10:
+            raise ValueError, ('length of array', i, 'screwed up')
+        _check_sort(a)
+
+    print 'test passed!', TID, 'threads created in all'
+
+if __name__ == '__main__':
+    test()
+
+# end of module