Develop Reference

Add Task to Multiprocessing Pool of Parent

How can I add a new task to a multiprocessing pool that I initialized in a parent process? This following does not work:
from multiprocessing import Pool
def child_task(x):
# the child task spawns new tasks
results = p.map(grandchild_task, [x])
return results[0]
def grandchild_task(x):
return x
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = Pool(2)
print(p.map(child_task, [0]))
# Result: NameError: name 'p' is not defined
Motivation: I need to parallelize a program which consists of various child tasks, which themselves also have child tasks (i.e., grandchild tasks). Only parallelizing the child tasks OR the grandchild tasks does not utilize all my CPU cores.
In my use-case, I have various child tasks (maybe 1-50) and many grandchild tasks per child task (maybe 100-1000).
Alternatives: If this is not possible using Python's multiprocessing package, I am happy to switch to another library that supports this.

There is such a thing as a minimal reproducible example and then there is going beyond that to remove so much code as to end up with something that (1) is perhaps too oversimplified with the danger than an answer could miss the mark and (2) couldn't possibly run as shown (you need to enclose the code that creates the Pool and submits the task in a block that is controlled by an if __name__ == '__main__': statement.
But based on what you have shown, I don't believe a Pool is the solution for you; you should be creating Process instances as they are required. One way to get the results from the Processes is to store them in a shareable, managed dictionary whose key is, for example, the process id of the Process that has created the result.
To expand on your example, the child task is passed two arguments, x and y and needs to return as a result x**2 + 'y**2. The child task will spawn two instances of grandchild task, each one computing the square of its argument. The child task will then combine the return values from these processes using addition:
from multiprocessing import Process, Manager
import os
def child_task(results_dict, x, y):
# the child task spawns new tasks
p1 = Process(target=grandchild_task, args=(results_dict, x))
p1.start()
pid1 = p1.pid
p2 = Process(target=grandchild_task, args=(results_dict, y))
p2.start()
pid2 = p2.pid
p1.join()
p2.join()
pid = os.getpid()
results_dict[pid] = results_dict[pid1] + results_dict[pid2]
def grandchild_task(results_dict, n):
pid = os.getpid()
results_dict[pid] = n * n
def main():
manager = Manager()
results_dict = manager.dict()
p = Process(target=child_task, args=(results_dict, 2, 3))
p.start()
pid = p.pid
p.join()
# results will be stored with key p.pid:
print(results_dict[pid])
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Prints:
13
Update
If you really had a situation where, for example, child_task needed to process N identical calls varying only in its arguments but it had to spawn a sub-process or two, then use a Pool as before but additionally pass a managed dictionary to child_task to be used for spawning additional Processes (not attempting to use a Pool for this) and retrieving their results.
Update 2
The only way I could figure out for the sub-processes themselves to use pooling is to use the ProcessPoolExecutor class from concurrent.futures module. When I attempted to do the same thing with multiprocessing.Pool, I got an error because we had daemon processes trying to create their own processes. But even here the only way is for each process in the pool to have its own pool of processes. You only have a finite number of processors/cores on your computer, so unless there is a bit of I/O mixed in the processing, you can create all these pools but the processes will be waiting for a chance to run. So, it's not clear what performance gains will be realized. There is also the problem of shutting down all the pools created for the child_task sub-processes. Normally a ProcessPoolExecutor instance is created using a with block and when that block is terminated the pool that was created is cleaned up. But child_task is invoked repeatedly and clearly cannot use with block because we don't want constantly to be creating and destroying pools. What I have come here is a bit of a kludge: A third parameter is passed, either True or False, indicating whether child_task should instigate a shutdown of its pool. The default value for this parameter is False, we don't even bother passing it. After all the actual results have been retrieved and the child_task processes are now idle, we submit N new tasks with dummy values but with shutdown set to True. Note that the ProcessPoolExecutor function map works quite a bit differently than the same function in the Pool class (read the docs):
from concurrent.futures import ProcessPoolExecutor
import time
child_executor = None
def child_task(x, y, shutdown=False):
global child_executor
if child_executor is None:
child_executor = ProcessPoolExecutor(max_workers=1)
if shutdown:
if child_executor:
child_executor.shutdown(False)
child_executor = None
time.sleep(.2) # make sure another process in the pool gets the next task
return None
# the child task spawns new task(s)
future = child_executor.submit(grandchild_task, y)
# we can compute one of the results using the current process:
return grandchild_task(x) + future.result()
def grandchild_task(n):
return n * n
def main():
N_WORKERS = 2
with ProcessPoolExecutor(max_workers=N_WORKERS) as executor:
# first call is (1, 2), second call is (3, 4):
results = [result for result in executor.map(child_task, (1, 3), (2, 4))]
print(results)
# force a shutdown
# need N_WORKERS invocations:
[result for result in executor.map(child_task, (0,) * N_WORKERS, (0,) * N_WORKERS, (True,) * N_WORKERS)]
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Prints:
[5, 25]

Check this solution:
#!/usr/bin/python
# requires Python version 3.8 or higher
from multiprocessing import Queue, Process
import time
from random import randrange
import os
import psutil
# function to be run by each child process
def square(number):
sleep = randrange(5)
time.sleep(sleep)
print(f'Result is {number * number}, computed by pid {os.getpid()}...sleeping {sleep} secs')
# create a queue where all tasks will be placed
queue = Queue()
# indicate how many number of children you want the system to create to run the tasks
number_of_child_proceses = 5
# put all tasks in the queue above
for task in range(19):
queue.put(task)
# this the main entry/start of the program when you run
def main():
number_of_task = queue.qsize()
print(f'{"_" * 60}\nBatch: {number_of_task // number_of_child_proceses + 1} \n{"_" * 60}')
# don't create more number of children than the number of tasks. Also, in the last round, wait for all child process
# to complete so as to wrap up everything
if number_of_task <= number_of_child_proceses:
processes = [Process(target=square, args=(queue.get(),)) for _ in
range(number_of_task)]
for p in processes:
p.start()
p.join()
else:
processes = [Process(target=square, args=(queue.get(),)) for _ in range(number_of_child_proceses)]
for p in processes:
p.start()
# update count of remaining task
number_of_task = queue.qsize()
# run the program in a loop until no more task remains in the queue
while number_of_task:
current_process = psutil.Process()
children = current_process.children()
# if children process have completed assigned task but there is still more remaining tasks in the queue,
# assign them more tasks
if not len(children) and number_of_task:
print(f'\nAssigned tasks completed... reasigning the remaining {number_of_task} task(s) in the queue\n')
main()
# exit the loop if no more task in the queue to work on
print('\nAll tasks completed!!')
exit()
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()

I have looked around more, and found Ray, which addresses this exact use case using nested remote functions.

python multiprocessing .join() deadlock depends on worker function

I am using the multiprocessing python library to spawn 4 Process() objects to parallelize a cpu intensive task. The task (inspiration and code from this great article) is to compute the prime factors for every integer in a list.
main.py:
import random
import multiprocessing
import sys
num_inputs = 4000
num_procs = 4
proc_inputs = num_inputs/num_procs
input_list = [int(1000*random.random()) for i in xrange(num_inputs)]
output_queue = multiprocessing.Queue()
procs = []
for p_i in xrange(num_procs):
print "Process [%d]"%p_i
proc_list = input_list[proc_inputs * p_i:proc_inputs * (p_i + 1)]
print " - num inputs: [%d]"%len(proc_list)
# Using target=worker1 HANGS on join
p = multiprocessing.Process(target=worker1, args=(p_i, proc_list, output_queue))
# Using target=worker2 RETURNS with success
#p = multiprocessing.Process(target=worker2, args=(p_i, proc_list, output_queue))
procs.append(p)
p.start()
for p in jobs:
print "joining ", p, output_queue.qsize(), output_queue.full()
p.join()
print "joined ", p, output_queue.qsize(), output_queue.full()
print "Processing complete."
ret_vals = []
while output_queue.empty() == False:
ret_vals.append(output_queue.get())
print len(ret_vals)
print sys.getsizeof(ret_vals)
Observation:
If the target for each process is the function worker1, for an input list larger than 4000 elements the main thread gets stuck on .join(), waiting for the spawned processes to terminate and never returns.
If the target for each process is the function worker2, for the same input list the code works just fine and the main thread returns.
This is very confusing to me, as the only difference between worker1 and worker2 (see below) is that the former inserts individual lists in the Queue whereas the latter inserts a single list of lists for each process.
Why is there deadlock using worker1 and not using worker2 target?
Shouldn't both (or neither) go beyond the Multiprocessing Queue maxsize limit is 32767?
worker1 vs worker2:
def worker1(proc_num, proc_list, output_queue):
'''worker function which deadlocks'''
for num in proc_list:
output_queue.put(factorize_naive(num))
def worker2(proc_num, proc_list, output_queue):
'''worker function that works'''
workers_stuff = []
for num in proc_list:
workers_stuff.append(factorize_naive(num))
output_queue.put(workers_stuff)
There are a lot of similar questions on SO, but I believe the core of this questions is clearly distinct from all of them.
Related Links:
https://sopython.com/canon/82/programs-using-multiprocessing-hang-deadlock-and-never-complete/
python multiprocessing issues
python multiprocessing - process hangs on join for large queue
Process.join() and queue don't work with large numbers
Python 3 Multiprocessing queue deadlock when calling join before the queue is empty
Script using multiprocessing module does not terminate
Why does multiprocessing.Process.join() hang?
When to call .join() on a process?
What exactly is Python multiprocessing Module's .join() Method Doing?

The docs warn about this:
Warning: As mentioned above, if a child process has put items on a queue (and it has not used JoinableQueue.cancel_join_thread), then that process will not terminate until all buffered items have been flushed to the pipe.
This means that if you try joining that process you may get a deadlock unless you are sure that all items which have been put on the queue have been consumed. Similarly, if the child process is non-daemonic then the parent process may hang on exit when it tries to join all its non-daemonic children.
While a Queue appears to be unbounded, under the covers queued items are buffered in memory to avoid overloading inter-process pipes. A process cannot end normally before those memory buffers are flushed. Your worker1() puts a lot more items on the queue than your worker2(), and that's all there is to it. Note that the number of items that can queued before the implementation resorts to buffering in memory isn't defined: it can vary across OS and Python release.
As the docs suggest, the normal way to avoid this is to .get() all the items off the queue before you attempt to .join() the processes. As you've discovered, whether it's necessary to do so depends in an undefined way on how many items have been put on the queue by each worker process.

Python: How to keep starting new parallel processes based on condition [duplicate]

I am reading various tutorials on the multiprocessing module in Python, and am having trouble understanding why/when to call process.join(). For example, I stumbled across this example:
nums = range(100000)
nprocs = 4
def worker(nums, out_q):
""" The worker function, invoked in a process. 'nums' is a
list of numbers to factor. The results are placed in
a dictionary that's pushed to a queue.
"""
outdict = {}
for n in nums:
outdict[n] = factorize_naive(n)
out_q.put(outdict)
# Each process will get 'chunksize' nums and a queue to put his out
# dict into
out_q = Queue()
chunksize = int(math.ceil(len(nums) / float(nprocs)))
procs = []
for i in range(nprocs):
p = multiprocessing.Process(
target=worker,
args=(nums[chunksize * i:chunksize * (i + 1)],
out_q))
procs.append(p)
p.start()
# Collect all results into a single result dict. We know how many dicts
# with results to expect.
resultdict = {}
for i in range(nprocs):
resultdict.update(out_q.get())
# Wait for all worker processes to finish
for p in procs:
p.join()
print resultdict
From what I understand, process.join() will block the calling process until the process whose join method was called has completed execution. I also believe that the child processes which have been started in the above code example complete execution upon completing the target function, that is, after they have pushed their results to the out_q. Lastly, I believe that out_q.get() blocks the calling process until there are results to be pulled. Thus, if you consider the code:
resultdict = {}
for i in range(nprocs):
resultdict.update(out_q.get())
# Wait for all worker processes to finish
for p in procs:
p.join()
the main process is blocked by the out_q.get() calls until every single worker process has finished pushing its results to the queue. Thus, by the time the main process exits the for loop, each child process should have completed execution, correct?
If that is the case, is there any reason for calling the p.join() methods at this point? Haven't all worker processes already finished, so how does that cause the main process to "wait for all worker processes to finish?" I ask mainly because I have seen this in multiple different examples, and I am curious if I have failed to understand something.

Try to run this:
import math
import time
from multiprocessing import Queue
import multiprocessing
def factorize_naive(n):
factors = []
for div in range(2, int(n**.5)+1):
while not n % div:
factors.append(div)
n //= div
if n != 1:
factors.append(n)
return factors
nums = range(100000)
nprocs = 4
def worker(nums, out_q):
""" The worker function, invoked in a process. 'nums' is a
list of numbers to factor. The results are placed in
a dictionary that's pushed to a queue.
"""
outdict = {}
for n in nums:
outdict[n] = factorize_naive(n)
out_q.put(outdict)
# Each process will get 'chunksize' nums and a queue to put his out
# dict into
out_q = Queue()
chunksize = int(math.ceil(len(nums) / float(nprocs)))
procs = []
for i in range(nprocs):
p = multiprocessing.Process(
target=worker,
args=(nums[chunksize * i:chunksize * (i + 1)],
out_q))
procs.append(p)
p.start()
# Collect all results into a single result dict. We know how many dicts
# with results to expect.
resultdict = {}
for i in range(nprocs):
resultdict.update(out_q.get())
time.sleep(5)
# Wait for all worker processes to finish
for p in procs:
p.join()
print resultdict
time.sleep(15)
And open the task-manager. You should be able to see that the 4 subprocesses go in zombie state for some seconds before being terminated by the OS(due to the join calls):
With more complex situations the child processes could stay in zombie state forever(like the situation you was asking about in an other question), and if you create enough child-processes you could fill the process table causing troubles to the OS(which may kill your main process to avoid failures).

At the point just before you call join, all workers have put their results into their queues, but they did not necessarily return, and their processes may not yet have terminated. They may or may not have done so, depending on timing.
Calling join makes sure that all processes are given the time to properly terminate.

I am not exactly sure of the implementation details, but join also seems to be necessary to reflect that a process has indeed terminated (after calling terminate on it for example). In the example here, if you don't call join after terminating a process, process.is_alive() returns True, even though the process was terminated with a process.terminate() call.

Asynchronous multiprocessing with a worker pool in Python: how to keep going after timeout?

I would like to run a number of jobs using a pool of processes and apply a given timeout after which a job should be killed and replaced by another working on the next task.
I have tried to use the multiprocessing module which offers a method to run of pool of workers asynchronously (e.g. using map_async), but there I can only set a "global" timeout after which all processes would be killed.
Is it possible to have an individual timeout after which only a single process that takes too long is killed and a new worker is added to the pool again instead (processing the next task and skipping the one that timed out)?
Here's a simple example to illustrate my problem:
def Check(n):
import time
if n % 2 == 0: # select some (arbitrary) subset of processes
print "%d timeout" % n
while 1:
# loop forever to simulate some process getting stuck
pass
print "%d done" % n
return 0
from multiprocessing import Pool
pool = Pool(processes=4)
result = pool.map_async(Check, range(10))
print result.get(timeout=1)
After the timeout all workers are killed and the program exits. I would like instead that it continues with the next subtask. Do I have to implement this behavior myself or are there existing solutions?
Update
It is possible to kill the hanging workers and they are automatically replaced. So I came up with this code:
jobs = pool.map_async(Check, range(10))
while 1:
try:
print "Waiting for result"
result = jobs.get(timeout=1)
break # all clear
except multiprocessing.TimeoutError:
# kill all processes
for c in multiprocessing.active_children():
c.terminate()
print result
The problem now is that the loop never exits; even after all tasks have been processed, calling get yields a timeout exception.

The pebble Pool module has been built for solving these types of issue. It supports timeout on given tasks allowing to detect them and easily recover.
from pebble import ProcessPool
from concurrent.futures import TimeoutError
with ProcessPool() as pool:
future = pool.schedule(function, args=[1,2], timeout=5)
try:
result = future.result()
except TimeoutError:
print "Function took longer than %d seconds" % error.args[1]
For your specific example:
from pebble import ProcessPool
from concurrent.futures import TimeoutError
results = []
with ProcessPool(max_workers=4) as pool:
future = pool.map(Check, range(10), timeout=5)
iterator = future.result()
# iterate over all results, if a computation timed out
# print it and continue to the next result
while True:
try:
result = next(iterator)
results.append(result)
except StopIteration:
break
except TimeoutError as error:
print "function took longer than %d seconds" % error.args[1]
print results

Currently the Python does not provide native means to the control execution time of each distinct task in the pool outside the worker itself.
So the easy way is to use wait_procs in the psutil module and implement the tasks as subprocesses.
If nonstandard libraries are not desirable, then you have to implement own Pool on base of subprocess module having the working cycle in the main process, poll() - ing the execution of each worker and performing required actions.
As for the updated problem, the pool becomes corrupted if you directly terminate one of the workers (it is the bug in the interpreter implementation, because such behavior should not be allowed): the worker is recreated, but the task is lost and the pool becomes nonjoinable.
You have to terminate all the pool and then recreate it again for another tasks:
from multiprocessing import Pool
while True:
pool = Pool(processes=4)
jobs = pool.map_async(Check, range(10))
print "Waiting for result"
try:
result = jobs.get(timeout=1)
break # all clear
except multiprocessing.TimeoutError:
# kill all processes
pool.terminate()
pool.join()
print result
UPDATE
Pebble is an excellent and handy library, which solves the issue. Pebble is designed for the asynchronous execution of Python functions, where is PyExPool is designed for the asynchronous execution of modules and external executables, though both can be used interchangeably.
One more aspect is when 3dparty dependencies are not desirable, then PyExPool can be a good choice, which is a single-file lightweight implementation of Multi-process Execution Pool with per-Job and global timeouts, opportunity to group Jobs into Tasks and other features.
PyExPool can be embedded into your sources and customized, having permissive Apache 2.0 license and production quality, being used in the core of one high-loaded scientific benchmarking framework.

Try the construction where each process is being joined with a timeout on a separate thread. So the main program never gets stuck and as well the processes which if gets stuck, would be killed due to timeout. This technique is a combination of threading and multiprocessing modules.
Here is my way to maintain the minimum x number of threads in the memory. Its an combination of threading and multiprocessing modules. It may be unusual to other techniques like respected fellow members have explained above BUT may be worth considerable. For the sake of explanation, I am taking a scenario of crawling a minimum of 5 websites at a time.
so here it is:-
#importing dependencies.
from multiprocessing import Process
from threading import Thread
import threading
# Crawler function
def crawler(domain):
# define crawler technique here.
output.write(scrapeddata + "\n")
pass
Next is threadController function. This function will control the flow of threads to the main memory. It will keep activating the threads to maintain the threadNum "minimum" limit ie. 5. Also it won't exit until, all Active threads(acitveCount) are finished up.
It will maintain a minimum of threadNum(5) startProcess function threads (these threads will eventually start the Processes from the processList while joining them with a time out of 60 seconds). After staring threadController, there would be 2 threads which are not included in the above limit of 5 ie. the Main thread and the threadController thread itself. thats why threading.activeCount() != 2 has been used.
def threadController():
print "Thread count before child thread starts is:-", threading.activeCount(), len(processList)
# staring first thread. This will make the activeCount=3
Thread(target = startProcess).start()
# loop while thread List is not empty OR active threads have not finished up.
while len(processList) != 0 or threading.activeCount() != 2:
if (threading.activeCount() < (threadNum + 2) and # if count of active threads are less than the Minimum AND
len(processList) != 0): # processList is not empty
Thread(target = startProcess).start() # This line would start startThreads function as a seperate thread **
startProcess function, as a separate thread, would start Processes from the processlist. The purpose of this function (**started as a different thread) is that It would become a parent thread for Processes. So when It will join them with a timeout of 60 seconds, this would stop the startProcess thread to move ahead but this won't stop threadController to perform. So this way, threadController will work as required.
def startProcess():
pr = processList.pop(0)
pr.start()
pr.join(60.00) # joining the thread with time out of 60 seconds as a float.
if __name__ == '__main__':
# a file holding a list of domains
domains = open("Domains.txt", "r").read().split("\n")
output = open("test.txt", "a")
processList = [] # thread list
threadNum = 5 # number of thread initiated processes to be run at one time
# making process List
for r in range(0, len(domains), 1):
domain = domains[r].strip()
p = Process(target = crawler, args = (domain,))
processList.append(p) # making a list of performer threads.
# starting the threadController as a seperate thread.
mt = Thread(target = threadController)
mt.start()
mt.join() # won't let go next until threadController thread finishes.
output.close()
print "Done"
Besides maintaining a minimum number of threads in the memory, my aim was to also have something which could avoid stuck threads or processes in the memory. I did this using the time out function. My apologies for any typing mistake.
I hope this construction would help anyone in this world.
Regards,
Vikas Gautam

When to call .join() on a process?

I am reading various tutorials on the multiprocessing module in Python, and am having trouble understanding why/when to call process.join(). For example, I stumbled across this example:
nums = range(100000)
nprocs = 4
def worker(nums, out_q):
""" The worker function, invoked in a process. 'nums' is a
list of numbers to factor. The results are placed in
a dictionary that's pushed to a queue.
"""
outdict = {}
for n in nums:
outdict[n] = factorize_naive(n)
out_q.put(outdict)
# Each process will get 'chunksize' nums and a queue to put his out
# dict into
out_q = Queue()
chunksize = int(math.ceil(len(nums) / float(nprocs)))
procs = []
for i in range(nprocs):
p = multiprocessing.Process(
target=worker,
args=(nums[chunksize * i:chunksize * (i + 1)],
out_q))
procs.append(p)
p.start()
# Collect all results into a single result dict. We know how many dicts
# with results to expect.
resultdict = {}
for i in range(nprocs):
resultdict.update(out_q.get())
# Wait for all worker processes to finish
for p in procs:
p.join()
print resultdict
From what I understand, process.join() will block the calling process until the process whose join method was called has completed execution. I also believe that the child processes which have been started in the above code example complete execution upon completing the target function, that is, after they have pushed their results to the out_q. Lastly, I believe that out_q.get() blocks the calling process until there are results to be pulled. Thus, if you consider the code:
resultdict = {}
for i in range(nprocs):
resultdict.update(out_q.get())
# Wait for all worker processes to finish
for p in procs:
p.join()
the main process is blocked by the out_q.get() calls until every single worker process has finished pushing its results to the queue. Thus, by the time the main process exits the for loop, each child process should have completed execution, correct?
If that is the case, is there any reason for calling the p.join() methods at this point? Haven't all worker processes already finished, so how does that cause the main process to "wait for all worker processes to finish?" I ask mainly because I have seen this in multiple different examples, and I am curious if I have failed to understand something.

Try to run this:
import math
import time
from multiprocessing import Queue
import multiprocessing
def factorize_naive(n):
factors = []
for div in range(2, int(n**.5)+1):
while not n % div:
factors.append(div)
n //= div
if n != 1:
factors.append(n)
return factors
nums = range(100000)
nprocs = 4
def worker(nums, out_q):
""" The worker function, invoked in a process. 'nums' is a
list of numbers to factor. The results are placed in
a dictionary that's pushed to a queue.
"""
outdict = {}
for n in nums:
outdict[n] = factorize_naive(n)
out_q.put(outdict)
# Each process will get 'chunksize' nums and a queue to put his out
# dict into
out_q = Queue()
chunksize = int(math.ceil(len(nums) / float(nprocs)))
procs = []
for i in range(nprocs):
p = multiprocessing.Process(
target=worker,
args=(nums[chunksize * i:chunksize * (i + 1)],
out_q))
procs.append(p)
p.start()
# Collect all results into a single result dict. We know how many dicts
# with results to expect.
resultdict = {}
for i in range(nprocs):
resultdict.update(out_q.get())
time.sleep(5)
# Wait for all worker processes to finish
for p in procs:
p.join()
print resultdict
time.sleep(15)
And open the task-manager. You should be able to see that the 4 subprocesses go in zombie state for some seconds before being terminated by the OS(due to the join calls):
With more complex situations the child processes could stay in zombie state forever(like the situation you was asking about in an other question), and if you create enough child-processes you could fill the process table causing troubles to the OS(which may kill your main process to avoid failures).

At the point just before you call join, all workers have put their results into their queues, but they did not necessarily return, and their processes may not yet have terminated. They may or may not have done so, depending on timing.
Calling join makes sure that all processes are given the time to properly terminate.

I am not exactly sure of the implementation details, but join also seems to be necessary to reflect that a process has indeed terminated (after calling terminate on it for example). In the example here, if you don't call join after terminating a process, process.is_alive() returns True, even though the process was terminated with a process.terminate() call.