I have a lot of files that need to be processed by some software. They don't need to be processed in the order.
Let's say I have 12 files and divided them in three lists then tried to send these lists to different processes to be executed:
# import all files
files = glob.glob(src_path + "*.fits")
files_list = [files[0::3], files[1::3], files[2::3]]
num_processors = 3 # Create a pool of processors
p = Pool(processes = num_processors) # get them to work in parallel
output = pool.map(run2, [f for f in files_list])
def run2(files, *args):
for ffit in files:
terminal_astrometry(command)
def terminal_astrometry(command):
result = subprocess.run(command, stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
The problem is that sometimes, the program doesn't process all of these files, i.e. 11 files do get processed but one does not. Or other time, 9 finished but 3 were skipped. Sometimes it does finish all tasks(process all of the files).
Essentially, in run2() function I am calling that particular software that I want to be run in parallel (Astrometry.net) on every file run2() function received.
EDIT2: I trimmed run2() function because it contains a lot of calculation(statistics) not relevant to a problem here(at least I think so) and posted it here.
Your symptoms sound like a race condition, however pool.map blocks the main process until all tasks have finished so the code will not progress past that line until all tasks have finished. Therefore, I think the problem may be within the run2 function - could you post its code?
Edit: I previously had the following text in the answer too, the question has now been edited:
You are calling run2 twice for each file - once asynchronously with the pool, and once in the main process. Depending on the logic within this function, this could be the cause of the odd behaviour you're seeing.
Software that I'm calling inside the run2() function is causing problems. It tries to write stdout in the same file which causes it to not complete all the tasks.
Related
My code is conceptually something like this
import multiprocessing.dummy
def working_with_files(test_file):
open test_file
...bunch of stuff...
create_fileA(variable)
create_fileB_from_fileA(fileA)
os.remove(fileA)
if __name__ == "__main__":
files = glob("/Users/Name/Documents/TestData/*")
pool = multiprocessing.dummy.Pool(8)
results = pool.map(working_with_files, files)
pool.close()
pool.join()
From my understanding, each thread is running concurrently, but inside each thread, its still happening in sequence. Since each thread is a function, everything inside the function should still be happening in sequence. I am, however, getting some weird errors. For example, when trying to os.remove(fileA), it says fileA doesn't exist (only occurs sometimes); however, it should exist since I'm only running that line after creating the file. These errors don't exist for single threads.
In the comment section, #AskioFrio confirmed that different threads could create files with same filenames. So I think the issue is race condition which could be illustrated with the following example (steps happening sequentially):
Thread A creates a file abc.
Thread B creates a file with the same filename abc; so abc gets overwritten.
Thread A deletes abc.
Thread B tries to delete abc, which has been deleted by thread A and thus the error occurs.
Actully the most notable race conditions happen in system memory when multiple threads try to write to the memory on the same address (e.g., writing to the same element in an array).
To avoid the race conditions, you may use lock or semaphore to coordinate the activities of threads.
I'm running Python 2.7 on the GCE platform to do calculations. The GCE instances boot, install various packages, copy 80 Gb of data from a storage bucket and runs a "workermaster.py" script with nohangup. The workermaster runs on an infinite loop which checks a task-queue bucket for tasks. When the task bucket isn't empty it picks a random file (task) and passes work to a calculation module. If there is nothing to do the workermaster sleeps for a number of seconds and checks the task-list again. The workermaster runs continuously until the instance is terminated (or something breaks!).
Currently this works quite well, but my problem is that my code only runs instances with a single CPU. If I want to scale up calculations I have to create many identical single-CPU instances and this means there is a large cost overhead for creating many 80 Gb disks and transferring the data to them each time, even though the calculation is only "reading" one small portion of the data for any particular calculation. I want to make everything more efficient and cost effective by making my workermaster capable of using multiple CPUs, but after reading many tutorials and other questions on SO I'm completely confused.
I thought I could just turn the important part of my workermaster code into a function, and then create a pool of processes that "call" it using the multiprocessing module. Once the workermaster loop is running on each CPU, the processes do not need to interact with each other or depend on each other in any way, they just happen to be running on the same instance. The workermaster prints out information about where it is in the calculation and I'm also confused about how it will be possible to tell the "print" statements from each process apart, but I guess that's a few steps from where I am now! My problems/confusion are that:
1) My workermaster "def" doesn't return any value because it just starts an infinite loop, where as every web example seems to have something in the format myresult = pool.map(.....); and
2) My workermaster "def" doesn't need any arguments/inputs - it just runs, whereas the examples of multiprocessing that I have seen on SO and on the Python Docs seem to have iterables.
In case it is important, the simplified version of the workermaster code is:
# module imports are here
# filepath definitions go here
def workermaster():
while True:
tasklist = cloudstoragefunctions.getbucketfiles('<my-task-queue-bucket')
if tasklist:
tasknumber = random.randint(2, len(tasklist))
assignedtask = tasklist[tasknumber]
print 'Assigned task is now: ' + assignedtask
subprocess.call('gsutil -q cp gs://<my-task-queue-bucket>/' + assignedtask + ' "' + taskfilepath + assignedtask + '"', shell=True)
tasktype = assignedtask.split('#')[0]
if tasktype == 'Calculation':
currentcalcid = assignedtask.split('#')[1]
currentfilenumber = assignedtask.split('#')[2].replace('part', '')
currentstartfile = assignedtask.split('#
currentendfile = assignedtask.split('#')[4].replace('.csv', '')
calcmodule.docalc(currentcalcid, currentfilenumber, currentstartfile, currentendfile)
elif tasktype == 'Analysis':
#set up and run analysis module, etc.
print ' Operation completed!'
os.remove(taskfilepath + assignedtask)
else:
print 'There are no tasks to be processed. Going to sleep...'
time.sleep(30)
Im trying to "call" the function multiple times using the multiprocessing module. I think I need to use the "pool" method, so I've tried this:
import multiprocessing
if __name__ == "__main__":
p = multiprocessing.Pool()
pool_output = p.map(workermaster, [])
My understanding from the docs is that the __name__ line is there only as a workaround for doing multiprocessing in Windows (which I am doing for development, but GCE is on Linux). The p = multiprocessing.Pool() line is creating a pool of workers equal to the number of system CPUs as no argument is specified. It the number of CPUs was 1 then I would expect the code to behave as it does before I attempted to use multiprocessing. The last line is the one that I don't understand. I thought that it was telling each of the processors in the pool that the "target" (thing to run) is workermaster. From the docs there appears to be a compulsory argument which is an iterable, but I don't really understand what this is in my case, as workermaster doesn't take any arguments. I've tried passing it an empty list, empty string, empty brackets (tuple?) and it doesn't do anything.
Please would it be possible for someone help me out? There are lots of discussions about using multiprocessing and this thread Mulitprocess Pools with different functions and this one python code with mulitprocessing only spawns one process each time seem to be close to what I am doing but still have iterables as arguments. If there is anything critical that I have left out please advise and I will modify my post - thank you to anyone who can help!
Pool() is useful if you want to run the same function with different argumetns.
If you want to run function only once then use normal Process().
If you want to run the same function 2 times then you can manually create 2 Process().
If you want to use Pool() to run function 2 times then add list with 2 arguments (even if you don't need arguments) because it is information for Pool() to run it 2 times.
But if you run function 2 times with the same folder then it may run 2 times the same task. if you will run 5 times then it may run 5 times the same task. I don't know if it is needed.
As for Ctrl+C I found on Stackoverflow Catch Ctrl+C / SIGINT and exit multiprocesses gracefully in python but I don't know if it resolves your problem.
I am running through a csv file of about 800k rows. I need a threading solution that runs through each row and spawns 32 threads at a time into a worker. I want to do this without a queue. It looks like current python threading solution with a queue is eating up alot of memory.
Basically want to read a csv file row and put into a worker thread. And only want 32 threads running at a time.
This is current script. It appears that it is reading the entire csv file into queue and doing a queue.join(). Is it correct that it is loading the entire csv into a queue then spawning the threads?
queue=Queue.Queue()
def worker():
while True:
task=queue.get()
try:
subprocess.call(['php {docRoot}/cli.php -u "api/email/ses" -r "{task}"'.format(
docRoot=docRoot,
task=task
)],shell=True)
except:
pass
with lock:
stats['done']+=1
if int(time.time())!=stats.get('now'):
stats.update(
now=int(time.time()),
percent=(stats.get('done')/stats.get('total'))*100,
ps=(stats.get('done')/(time.time()-stats.get('start')))
)
print("\r {percent:.1f}% [{progress:24}] {persec:.3f}/s ({done}/{total}) ETA {eta:<12}".format(
percent=stats.get('percent'),
progress=('='*int((23*stats.get('percent'))/100))+'>',
persec=stats.get('ps'),
done=int(stats.get('done')),
total=stats.get('total'),
eta=snippets.duration.time(int((stats.get('total')-stats.get('done'))/stats.get('ps')))
),end='')
queue.task_done()
for i in range(32):
workers=threading.Thread(target=worker)
workers.daemon=True
workers.start()
try:
with open(csvFile,'rb') as fh:
try:
dialect=csv.Sniffer().sniff(fh.readline(),[',',';'])
fh.seek(0)
reader=csv.reader(fh,dialect)
headers=reader.next()
except csv.Error as e:
print("\rERROR[CSV] {error}\n".format(error=e))
else:
while True:
try:
data=reader.next()
except csv.Error as e:
print("\rERROR[CSV] - Line {line}: {error}\n".format( line=reader.line_num, error=e))
except StopIteration:
break
else:
stats['total']+=1
queue.put(urllib.urlencode(dict(zip(headers,data)+dict(campaign=row.get('Campaign')).items())))
queue.join()
32 threads is probably overkill unless you have some humungous hardware available.
The rule of thumb for optimum number of threads or processes is: (no. of cores * 2) - 1
which comes to either 7 or 15 on most hardware.
The simplest way would be to start 7 threads passing each thread an "offset" as a parameter.
i.e. a number from 0 to 7.
Each thread would then skip rows until it reached the "offset" number and process that row. Having processed the row it can skip 6 rows and process the 7th -- repeat until no more rows.
This setup works for threads and multiple processes and is very efficient in I/O on most machines as all the threads should be reading roughly the same part of the file at any given time.
I should add that this method is particularly good for python as each thread is more or less independent once started and avoids the dreaded python global lock common to other methods.
I don't understand why you want to spawn 32 threads per row. However data processing in parallel in a fairly common embarassingly paralell thing to do and easily achievable with Python's multiprocessing library.
Example:
from multiprocessing import Pool
def job(args):
# do some work
inputs = [...] # define your inputs
Pool().map(job, inputs)
I leave it up to you to fill in the blanks to meet your specific requirements.
See: https://bitbucket.org/ccaih/ccav/src/tip/bin/ for many examples of this pattenr.
Other answers have explained how to use Pool without having to manage queues (it manages them for you) and that you do not want to set the number of processes to 32, but to your CPU count - 1. I would add two things. First, you may want to look at the pandas package, which can easily import your csv file into Python. The second is that the examples of using Pool in the other answers only pass it a function that takes a single argument. Unfortunately, you can only pass Pool a single object with all the inputs for your function, which makes it difficult to use functions that take multiple arguments. Here is code that allows you to call a previously defined function with multiple arguments using pool:
import multiprocessing
from multiprocessing import Pool
def multiplyxy(x,y):
return x*y
def funkytuple(t):
"""
Breaks a tuple into a function to be called and a tuple
of arguments for that function. Changes that new tuple into
a series of arguments and passes those arguments to the
function.
"""
f = t[0]
t = t[1]
return f(*t)
def processparallel(func, arglist):
"""
Takes a function and a list of arguments for that function
and proccesses in parallel.
"""
parallelarglist = []
for entry in arglist:
parallelarglist.append((func, tuple(entry)))
cpu_count = int(multiprocessing.cpu_count() - 1)
pool = Pool(processes = cpu_count)
database = pool.map(funkytuple, parallelarglist)
pool.close()
return database
#Necessary on Windows
if __name__ == '__main__':
x = [23, 23, 42, 3254, 32]
y = [324, 234, 12, 425, 13]
i = 0
arglist = []
while i < len(x):
arglist.append([x[i],y[i]])
i += 1
database = processparallel(multiplyxy, arglist)
print(database)
Your question is pretty unclear. Have you tried initializing your Queue to have a maximum size of, say, 64?
myq = Queue.Queue(maxsize=64)
Then a producer (one or more) trying to .put() new items on myq will block until consumers reduce the queue size to less than 64. This will correspondingly limit the amount of memory consumed by the queue. By default, queues are unbounded: if the producer(s) add items faster than consumers take them off, the queue can grow to consume all the RAM you have.
EDIT
This is current script. It appears that it is reading the
entire csv file into queue and doing a queue.join(). Is
it correct that it is loading the entire csv into a queue
then spawning the threads?
The indentation is messed up in your post, so have to guess some, but:
The code obviously starts 32 threads before it opens the CSV file.
You didn't show the code that creates the queue. As already explained above, if it's a Queue.Queue, by default it's unbounded, and can grow to any size if your main loop puts items on it faster than your threads remove items from it. Since you haven't said anything about what worker() does (or shown its code), we don't have enough information to guess whether that's the case. But that memory use is out of hand suggests that's the case.
And, as also explained, you can stop that easily by specifying a maximum size when you create the queue.
To get better answers, supply better info ;-)
ANOTHER EDIT
Well, the indentation is still messed up in spots, but it's better. Have you tried any suggestions? Looks like your worker threads each spawn a new process, so they'll take very much longer than it takes just to read another line from the csv file. So it's indeed very likely that you put items on the queue far faster than they're taken off. So, for the umpteenth time ;-), TRY initializing the queue with (say) maxsize=64. Then reveal what happens.
BTW, the bare except: clause in worker() is a Really Bad Idea. If anything goes wrong, you'll never know. If you have to ignore every possible exception (including even KeyboardInterrupt and SystemExit), at least log the exception info.
And note what #JamesAnderson said: unless you have extraordinary hardware resources, trying to run 32 processes at a time is almost certainly slower than running a number of processes that's no more than twice the number of available cores. Then again, that depends too a lot on what your PHP program does. If, for example, the PHP program uses disk I/O heavily, any multiprocessing may be slower than none.
I have a strange problem here.
I have a python program that executes code held in seperate .py files, designed to be executed in sequence, one after another. The codes work fine, however they take too long to run. My plan was to split up processing each of these .py files amongst 4 processors using multiprocessing.pool.map_async(function, arguments) using execfile() as the function and the filename as the argument.
So anyways, when I run the code, absolutely nothing happens at all, not even an error.
Take a look and see if you can help me out, I run the file in SeqFile.runner(SeqFile.file).
class FileRunner:
def __init__(self, file):
self.file = file
def runner(self, file):
self.run = pool.map_async(execfile, file)
SeqFile = FileRunner("/Users/haysb/Dropbox/Stuart/Sample_proteins/Code/SVS_CodeParts/SequencePickler.py")
VolFile = FileRunner("/Users/haysb/Dropbox/Stuart/Sample_proteins/Code/SVS_CodeParts/VolumePickler.py")
CWFile = FileRunner("/Users/haysb/Dropbox/Stuart/Sample_proteins/Code/SVS_CodeParts/Combine_and_Write.py")
(SeqFile.runner(SeqFile.file))
You have several problems here - I'm guessing you never used multiprocessing before.
One of your problems is that you fire off an async operation but never wait for it to end. If you did wait for it to end, you'd get more info. For example, add:
result = SeqFile.run.get()
Do that, and you'll see the exception raised in the child process: you're mapping execfile over the string bound to file, so execfile sees one character at a time. execfile barfs when the first thing it tries to do is (in effect):
execfile("/")
apply_async() would make a lot more sense, or map_async() passed a list of all the files you want to run.
Etc - this gets tedious ;-)
Specifics
Let's get rid of the irrelevant cruft here, and show a complete executable program. I have three files a.py, b.py and c.py. Here's a.py:
print "I'm A!"
The other two are the obvious variations.
Here's my entire driver:
if __name__ == "__main__":
import multiprocessing as mp
files = ["a.py", "b.py", "c.py"]
pool = mp.Pool(2)
pool.imap_unordered(execfile, files)
pool.close()
pool.join()
That's all it takes, and prints (some permutation of):
I'm A!
I'm B!
I'm C!
imap_unordered() splits the list of files up among the worker processes, and doesn't care ("unordered") which order they run in. That's maximally efficient. Note that I restricted the number of workers to 2, just to show that it works fine even though there are more files (3) than worker processes (2).
You can get any of the Pool functions to work similarly. If you have ;-) to use map_async(), for example, replace the imap_unordered() call with:
async = pool.map_async(execfile, files)
async.get()
Or:
asyncs = [pool.apply_async(execfile, (fn,)) for fn in files]
for a in asyncs:
a.get()
Clearer? Keep it as simple as possible at first.
Here's what I am trying to accomplish -
I have about a million files which I need to parse & append the parsed content to a single file.
Since a single process takes ages, this option is out.
Not using threads in Python as it essentially comes to running a single process (due to GIL).
Hence using multiprocessing module. i.e. spawning 4 sub-processes to utilize all that raw core power :)
So far so good, now I need a shared object which all the sub-processes have access to. I am using Queues from the multiprocessing module. Also, all the sub-processes need to write their output to a single file. A potential place to use Locks I guess. With this setup when I run, I do not get any error (so the parent process seems fine), it just stalls. When I press ctrl-C I see a traceback (one for each sub-process). Also no output is written to the output file. Here's code (note that everything runs fine without multi-processes) -
import os
import glob
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue, Pool
data_file = open('out.txt', 'w+')
def worker(task_queue):
for file in iter(task_queue.get, 'STOP'):
data = mine_imdb_page(os.path.join(DATA_DIR, file))
if data:
data_file.write(repr(data)+'\n')
return
def main():
task_queue = Queue()
for file in glob.glob('*.csv'):
task_queue.put(file)
task_queue.put('STOP') # so that worker processes know when to stop
# this is the block of code that needs correction.
if multi_process:
# One way to spawn 4 processes
# pool = Pool(processes=4) #Start worker processes
# res = pool.apply_async(worker, [task_queue, data_file])
# But I chose to do it like this for now.
for i in range(4):
proc = Process(target=worker, args=[task_queue])
proc.start()
else: # single process mode is working fine!
worker(task_queue)
data_file.close()
return
what am I doing wrong? I also tried passing the open file_object to each of the processes at the time of spawning. But to no effect. e.g.- Process(target=worker, args=[task_queue, data_file]). But this did not change anything. I feel the subprocesses are not able to write to the file for some reason. Either the instance of the file_object is not getting replicated (at the time of spawn) or some other quirk... Anybody got an idea?
EXTRA: Also Is there any way to keep a persistent mysql_connection open & pass it across to the sub_processes? So I open a mysql connection in my parent process & the open connection should be accessible to all my sub-processes. Basically this is the equivalent of a shared_memory in python. Any ideas here?
Although the discussion with Eric was fruitful, later on I found a better way of doing this. Within the multiprocessing module there is a method called 'Pool' which is perfect for my needs.
It's optimizes itself to the number of cores my system has. i.e. only as many processes are spawned as the no. of cores. Of course this is customizable. So here's the code. Might help someone later-
from multiprocessing import Pool
def main():
po = Pool()
for file in glob.glob('*.csv'):
filepath = os.path.join(DATA_DIR, file)
po.apply_async(mine_page, (filepath,), callback=save_data)
po.close()
po.join()
file_ptr.close()
def mine_page(filepath):
#do whatever it is that you want to do in a separate process.
return data
def save_data(data):
#data is a object. Store it in a file, mysql or...
return
Still going through this huge module. Not sure if save_data() is executed by parent process or this function is used by spawned child processes. If it's the child which does the saving it might lead to concurrency issues in some situations. If anyone has anymore experience in using this module, you appreciate more knowledge here...
The docs for multiprocessing indicate several methods of sharing state between processes:
http://docs.python.org/dev/library/multiprocessing.html#sharing-state-between-processes
I'm sure each process gets a fresh interpreter and then the target (function) and args are loaded into it. In that case, the global namespace from your script would have been bound to your worker function, so the data_file would be there. However, I am not sure what happens to the file descriptor as it is copied across. Have you tried passing the file object as one of the args?
An alternative is to pass another Queue that will hold the results from the workers. The workers put the results and the main code gets the results and writes it to the file.