Develop Reference

Run function in parallel and grab outputs using Queue

I would like to fun a function using different arguments. For each different argument, I would like to run the function in parallel and then get the output of each run. It seems that the multiprocessing module can help here. I am not sure about the right steps to make this work.
Do I start all the processes, then get all the queues and then join all the processes in this order? Or do I get the results after I have joined? Or do I get the ith result after I have joined the ith process?
from numpy.random import uniform
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue
def function(x):
return uniform(0.0, x)
if __name__ == "__main__":
queue = Queue()
processes = []
x_values = [1.0, 10.0, 100.0]
# Start all processes
for x in x_values:
process = Process(target=function, args=(x, queue, ))
processes.append(process)
process.start()
# Grab results of the processes?
outputs = [queue.get() for _ in range(len(x_values))]
# Not even sure what this does but apparently it's needed
for process in processes:
process.join()

So lets make a simple example for multiprocessing pools with a loaded function that sleeps for 3 seconds and returns the value passed to it(your parameter) and also the result of the function which is just doubling it.
IIRC there's some issue with stopping pools cleanly
from multiprocessing import Pool
import time
def time_waster(val):
try:
time.sleep(3)
return (val, val*2) #return a tuple here but you can use a dict as well with all your parameters
except KeyboardInterrupt:
raise KeyboardInterruptError()
if __name__ == '__main__':
x = list(range(5)) #values to pass to the function
results = []
try:
with Pool(2) as p: #I use 2 but you can use as many as you have cores
results.append(p.map(time_waster,x))
except KeyboardInterrupt:
p.terminate()
except Exception as e:
p.terminate()
finally:
p.join()
print(results)
As an extra service added some keyboardinterrupt handlers as IIRC there are some issues interrupting pools.https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1408356/keyboard-interrupts-with-pythons-multiprocessing-pool

proc.join() blocks until the process ended. queue.get() blocks until there is something in the queue. Because your processes don't put anything into the queue (in this example) than this code will never get beyond the queue.get() part... If your processes put something in the queue at the very end, then it doesn't matter if you first join() or get() because they happen at about the same time.

How to return values from Process- or Thread instances?

So I want to run a function which can either search for information on the web or directly from my own mysql database.
The first process will be time-consuming, the second relatively fast.
With this in mind I create a process which starts this compound search (find_compound_view). If the process finishes relatively fast it means it's present on the database so I can render the results immediately. Otherwise, I will render "drax_retrieving_data.html".
The stupid solution I came up with was to run the function twice, once to check if the process takes a long time, the other to actually get the return values of the function. This is pretty much because I don't know how to return the values of my find_compound_view function. I've tried googling but I can't seem to find how to return the values from the class Process specifically.
p = Process(target=find_compound_view, args=(form,))
p.start()
is_running = p.is_alive()
start_time=time.time()
while is_running:
time.sleep(0.05)
is_running = p.is_alive()
if time.time() - start_time > 10 :
print('Timer exceeded, DRAX is retrieving info!',time.time() - start_time)
return render(request,'drax_internal_dbs/drax_retrieving_data.html')
compound = find_compound_view(form,use_email=False)
if compound:
data=*****
return render(request, 'drax_internal_dbs/result.html',data)

You will need a multiprocessing.Pipe or a multiprocessing.Queue to send the results back to your parent-process. If you just do I/0, you should use a Thread instead of a Process, since it's more lightweight and most time will be spend on waiting. I'm showing you how it's done for Process and Threads in general.
Process with Queue
The multiprocessing queue is build on top of a pipe and access is synchronized with locks/semaphores. Queues are thread- and process-safe, meaning you can use one queue for multiple producer/consumer-processes and even multiple threads in these processes. Adding the first item on the queue will also start a feeder-thread in the calling process. The additional overhead of a multiprocessing.Queue makes using a pipe for single-producer/single-consumer scenarios preferable and more performant.
Here's how to send and retrieve a result with a multiprocessing.Queue:
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue
SENTINEL = 'SENTINEL'
def sim_busy(out_queue, x):
for _ in range(int(x)):
assert 1 == 1
result = x
out_queue.put(result)
# If all results are enqueued, send a sentinel-value to let the parent know
# no more results will come.
out_queue.put(SENTINEL)
if __name__ == '__main__':
out_queue = Queue()
p = Process(target=sim_busy, args=(out_queue, 150e6)) # 150e6 == 150000000.0
p.start()
for result in iter(out_queue.get, SENTINEL): # sentinel breaks the loop
print(result)
The queue is passed as argument into the function, results are .put() on the queue and the parent get.()s from the queue. .get() is a blocking call, execution does not resume until something is to get (specifying timeout parameter is possible). Note the work sim_busy does here is cpu-intensive, that's when you would choose processes over threads.
Process & Pipe
For one-to-one connections a pipe is enough. The setup is nearly identical, just the methods are named differently and a call to Pipe() returns two connection objects. In duplex mode, both objects are read-write ends, with duplex=False (simplex) the first connection object is the read-end of the pipe, the second is the write-end. In this basic scenario we just need a simplex-pipe:
from multiprocessing import Process, Pipe
SENTINEL = 'SENTINEL'
def sim_busy(write_conn, x):
for _ in range(int(x)):
assert 1 == 1
result = x
write_conn.send(result)
# If all results are send, send a sentinel-value to let the parent know
# no more results will come.
write_conn.send(SENTINEL)
if __name__ == '__main__':
# duplex=False because we just need one-way communication in this case.
read_conn, write_conn = Pipe(duplex=False)
p = Process(target=sim_busy, args=(write_conn, 150e6)) # 150e6 == 150000000.0
p.start()
for result in iter(read_conn.recv, SENTINEL): # sentinel breaks the loop
print(result)
Thread & Queue
For use with threading, you want to switch to queue.Queue. queue.Queue is build on top of a collections.deque, adding some locks to make it thread-safe. Unlike with multiprocessing's queue and pipe, objects put on a queue.Queue won't get pickled. Since threads share the same memory address-space, serialization for memory-copying is unnecessary, only pointers are transmitted.
from threading import Thread
from queue import Queue
import time
SENTINEL = 'SENTINEL'
def sim_io(out_queue, query):
time.sleep(1)
result = query + '_result'
out_queue.put(result)
# If all results are enqueued, send a sentinel-value to let the parent know
# no more results will come.
out_queue.put(SENTINEL)
if __name__ == '__main__':
out_queue = Queue()
p = Thread(target=sim_io, args=(out_queue, 'my_query'))
p.start()
for result in iter(out_queue.get, SENTINEL): # sentinel-value breaks the loop
print(result)
Read here why for result in iter(out_queue.get, SENTINEL):
should be prefered over a while True...break setup, where possible.
Read here why you should use if __name__ == '__main__': in all your scripts and especially in multiprocessing.
More about get()-usage here.

Inverse of ProcessPoolExecutor in Python

This is related to my earlier problem which I'm still working on solving. Essentially I need the inverse design of ProcessPoolExecutor, where I have many querying processes and one worker which calculates and sends back results in batches.
Sending the work items is easy with one shared queue, but I still don't have a nice solution for sending all the results back to the right threads on the right processes.

I think it makes the most sense to have a separate multiprocessing.pipe for each querying process. The worker process waits for an available item on any pipe, and the dequeues and processes it, keeping track of which pipe it came from. When it's time to send data back, it feeds the results onto the correct pipe.
Here's a simple example:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import multiprocessing as mp
def worker(pipes):
quit = [False] * len(pipes)
results = [''] * len(pipes)
# Wait for all workers to send None before quitting
while not all(quit):
ready = mp.connection.wait(pipes)
for pipe in ready:
# Get index of query proc's pipe
i = pipes.index(pipe)
# Receive and "process"
obj = pipe.recv()
if obj is None:
quit[i] = True
continue
result = str(obj)
results[i] += result
# Send back to query proc
pipes[i].send(result)
print(results)
def query(pipe):
for i in 'do some work':
pipe.send(i)
assert pipe.recv() == i
pipe.send(None) # Send sentinel
if __name__ == '__main__':
nquery_procs = 8
work_pipes, query_pipes = zip(*(mp.Pipe() for _ in range(nquery_procs)))
query_procs = [mp.Process(target=query, args=(pipe,)) for pipe in query_pipes]
for p in query_procs:
p.start()
worker(work_pipes)
for p in query_procs:
p.join()
Alternatively, you could give each querying process an ID number (which might just be its pipe's index), and any request must be a tuple which is (id_num, data). This just gets around the worker process doing pipes.index(pipe) on each loop, so I'm not sure how much it buys you.

Multiprocessing has cutoff at 992 integers being joined as result

I am following this book http://doughellmann.com/pages/python-standard-library-by-example.html
Along with some online references. I have some algorithm setup for multiprocessing where i have a large array of dictionaries and do some calculation. I use multiprocessing to divide the indexes on which the calculations are done on the dictionary. To make the question more general, I replaced the algorithm with just some array of return values. From finding information online and other SO, I think it has to do with the join method.
The structure is like so,
Generate some fake data, call the manager function for multiprocessing, create a Queue, divide data over the number of index. Loop through the number of processes to use, send each process function the correct index range. Lastly join the processes and print out the results.
What I have figured out, is if the function used by the processes is trying to return a range(0,992), it works quickly, if the range(0,993), it hangs. I tried on two different computers with different specs.
The code is here:
import multiprocessing
def main():
data = []
for i in range(0,10):
data.append(i)
CalcManager(data,start=0,end=50)
def CalcManager(myData,start,end):
print 'in calc manager'
#Multi processing
#Set the number of processes to use.
nprocs = 3
#Initialize the multiprocessing queue so we can get the values returned to us
tasks = multiprocessing.JoinableQueue()
result_q = multiprocessing.Queue()
#Setup an empty array to store our processes
procs = []
#Divide up the data for the set number of processes
interval = (end-start)/nprocs
new_start = start
#Create all the processes while dividing the work appropriately
for i in range(nprocs):
print 'starting processes'
new_end = new_start + interval
#Make sure we dont go past the size of the data
if new_end > end:
new_end = end
#Generate a new process and pass it the arguments
data = myData[new_start:new_end]
#Create the processes and pass the data and the result queue
p = multiprocessing.Process(target=multiProcess,args=(data,new_start,new_end,result_q,i))
procs.append(p)
p.start()
#Increment our next start to the current end
new_start = new_end+1
print 'finished starting'
#Joint the process to wait for all data/process to be finished
for p in procs:
p.join()
#Print out the results
for i in range(nprocs):
result = result_q.get()
print result
#MultiProcess Handling
def multiProcess(data,start,end,result_q,proc_num):
print 'started process'
results = range(0,(992))
result_q.put(results)
return
if __name__== '__main__':
main()
Is there something about these numbers specifically or am I just missing something basic that has nothing to do with these numbers?
From my searches, it seems this is some memory issue with the join method, but the book does not really explain how to solve this using this setup. Is it possible to use this structure (i understand it mostly, so it would be nice if i can continue to use this) and also pass back large results. I know there are other methods to share data between processes, but thats not what I need, just return the values and join them to one array once completed.

I can't reproduce this on my machine, but it sounds like items in put into the queue haven't been flushed to the underlying pipe. This will cause a deadlock if you try to terminate the process, according to the docs:
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.
If you're in this situation. your p.join() calls will hang forever, because there's still buffered data in the queue. You can avoid it by consuming from the queue before you join the processes:
#Print out the results
for i in range(nprocs):
result = result_q.get()
print result
#Joint the process to wait for all data/process to be finished
for p in procs:
p.join()
This doesn't affect the way the code works, each result_q.get() call will block until the result is placed on the queue, which has the same effect has calling join on all processes prior to calling get. The only difference is you avoid the deadlock.

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