import threading
threads = []
for n in range(0, 60000):
t = threading.Thread(target=function,args=(x, n))
t.start()
threads.append(t)
for t in threads:
t.join()
It is working well for range up to 800 on my laptop, but if I increase range to more than 800 I get the error can't create new thread.
How can I control number to threads to get created or any other way to make it work like timeout? I tried using threading.BoundedSemaphore function but that doesn't seem to work properly.
The problem is that no major platform (as of mid-2013) will let you create anywhere near this number of threads. There are a wide variety of different limitations you could run into, and without knowing your platform, its configuration, and the exact error you got, it's impossible to know which one you ran into. But here are two examples:
On 32-bit Windows, the default thread stack is 1MB, and all of your thread stacks have to fit into the same 2GB of virtual memory space as everything else in your program, so you will run out long before 60000.
On 64-bit linux, you will likely exhaust one of your session's soft ulimit values before you get anywhere near running out of page space. (Linux has a variety of different limits beyond the ones required by POSIX.)
So, how can i control number to threads to get created or any other way to make it work like timeout or whatever?
Using as many threads as possible is very unlikely to be what you actually want to do. Running 800 threads on an 8-core machine means that you're spending a whole lot of time context-switching between the threads, and the cache keeps getting flushed before it ever gets primed, and so on.
Most likely, what you really want is one of the following:
One thread per CPU, serving a pool of 60000 tasks.
Maybe processes instead of threads (if the primary work is in Python, or in C code that doesn't explicitly release the GIL).
Maybe a fixed number of threads (e.g., a web browsers may do, say, 12 concurrent requests at a time, whether you have 1 core or 64).
Maybe a pool of, say, 600 batches of 100 tasks apiece, instead of 60000 single tasks.
60000 cooperatively-scheduled fibers/greenlets/microthreads all sharing one real thread.
Maybe explicit coroutines instead of a scheduler.
Or "magic" cooperative greenlets via, e.g. gevent.
Maybe one thread per CPU, each running 1/Nth of the fibers.
But it's certainly possible.
Once you've hit whichever limit you're hitting, it's very likely that trying again will fail until a thread has finished its job and been joined, and it's pretty likely that trying again will succeed after that happens. So, given that you're apparently getting an exception, you could handle this the same way as anything else in Python: with a try/except block. For example, something like this:
threads = []
for n in range(0, 60000):
while True:
t = threading.Thread(target=function,args=(x, n))
try:
t.start()
threads.append(t)
except WhateverTheExceptionIs as e:
if threads:
threads[0].join()
del threads[0]
else:
raise
else:
break
for t in threads:
t.join()
Of course this assumes that the first task launched is likely to be the one of the first tasks finished. If this is not true, you'll need some way to explicitly signal doneness (condition, semaphore, queue, etc.), or you'll need to use some lower-level (platform-specific) library that gives you a way to wait on a whole list until at least one thread is finished.
Also, note that on some platforms (e.g., Windows XP), you can get bizarre behavior just getting near the limits.
On top of being a lot better, doing the right thing will probably be a lot simpler as well. For example, here's a process-per-CPU pool:
with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor:
fs = [executor.submit(function, x, n) for n in range(60000)]
concurrent.futures.wait(fs)
… and a fixed-thread-count pool:
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(12) as executor:
fs = [executor.submit(function, x, n) for n in range(60000)]
concurrent.futures.wait(fs)
… and a balancing-CPU-parallelism-with-numpy-vectorization batching pool:
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor() as executor:
batchsize = 60000 // os.cpu_count()
fs = [executor.submit(np.vector_function, x,
np.arange(n, min(n+batchsize, 60000)))
for n in range(0, 60000, batchsize)]
concurrent.futures.wait(fs)
In the examples above, I used a list comprehension to submit all of the jobs and gather their futures, because we're not doing anything else inside the loop. But from your comments, it sounds like you do have other stuff you want to do inside the loop. So, let's convert it back into an explicit for statement:
with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor:
fs = []
for n in range(60000):
fs.append(executor.submit(function, x, n))
concurrent.futures.wait(fs)
And now, whatever you want to add inside that loop, you can.
However, I don't think you actually want to add anything inside that loop. The loop just submits all the jobs as fast as possible; it's the wait function that sits around waiting for them all to finish, and it's probably there that you want to exit early.
To do this, you can use wait with the FIRST_COMPLETED flag, but it's much simpler to use as_completed.
Also, I'm assuming error is some kind of value that gets set by the tasks. In that case, you will need to put a Lock around it, as with any other mutable value shared between threads. (This is one place where there's slightly more than a one-line difference between a ProcessPoolExecutor and a ThreadPoolExecutor—if you use processes, you need multiprocessing.Lock instead of threading.Lock.)
So:
error_lock = threading.Lock
error = []
def function(x, n):
# blah blah
try:
# blah blah
except Exception as e:
with error_lock:
error.append(e)
# blah blah
with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor:
fs = [executor.submit(function, x, n) for n in range(60000)]
for f in concurrent.futures.as_completed(fs):
do_something_with(f.result())
with error_lock:
if len(error) > 1: exit()
However, you might want to consider a different design. In general, if you can avoid sharing between threads, your life gets a lot easier. And futures are designed to make that easy, by letting you return a value or raise an exception, just like a regular function call. That f.result() will give you the returned value or raise the raised exception. So, you can rewrite that code as:
def function(x, n):
# blah blah
# don't bother to catch exceptions here, let them propagate out
with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor:
fs = [executor.submit(function, x, n) for n in range(60000)]
error = []
for f in concurrent.futures.as_completed(fs):
try:
result = f.result()
except Exception as e:
error.append(e)
if len(error) > 1: exit()
else:
do_something_with(result)
Notice how similar this looks to the ThreadPoolExecutor Example in the docs. This simple pattern is enough to handle almost anything without locks, as long as the tasks don't need to interact with each other.
Related
In Python, for a toy example:
for x in range(0, 3):
# Call function A(x)
I want to continue the for loop if function A takes more than five seconds by skipping it so I won't get stuck or waste time.
By doing some search, I realized a subprocess or thread may help, but I have no idea how to implement it here.
I think creating a new process may be overkill. If you're on Mac or a Unix-based system, you should be able to use signal.SIGALRM to forcibly time out functions that take too long. This will work on functions that are idling for network or other issues that you absolutely can't handle by modifying your function. I have an example of using it in this answer:
Option for SSH to timeout after a short time? ClientAlive & ConnectTimeout don't seem to do what I need them to do
Editing my answer in here, though I'm not sure I'm supposed to do that:
import signal
class TimeoutException(Exception): # Custom exception class
pass
def timeout_handler(signum, frame): # Custom signal handler
raise TimeoutException
# Change the behavior of SIGALRM
signal.signal(signal.SIGALRM, timeout_handler)
for i in range(3):
# Start the timer. Once 5 seconds are over, a SIGALRM signal is sent.
signal.alarm(5)
# This try/except loop ensures that
# you'll catch TimeoutException when it's sent.
try:
A(i) # Whatever your function that might hang
except TimeoutException:
continue # continue the for loop if function A takes more than 5 second
else:
# Reset the alarm
signal.alarm(0)
This basically sets a timer for 5 seconds, then tries to execute your code. If it fails to complete before time runs out, a SIGALRM is sent, which we catch and turn into a TimeoutException. That forces you to the except block, where your program can continue.
Maybe someone find this decorator useful, based on TheSoundDefense answer:
import time
import signal
class TimeoutException(Exception): # Custom exception class
pass
def break_after(seconds=2):
def timeout_handler(signum, frame): # Custom signal handler
raise TimeoutException
def function(function):
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
signal.signal(signal.SIGALRM, timeout_handler)
signal.alarm(seconds)
try:
res = function(*args, **kwargs)
signal.alarm(0) # Clear alarm
return res
except TimeoutException:
print u'Oops, timeout: %s sec reached.' % seconds, function.__name__, args, kwargs
return
return wrapper
return function
Test:
#break_after(3)
def test(a, b, c):
return time.sleep(10)
>>> test(1,2,3)
Oops, timeout: 3 sec reached. test (1, 2, 3) {}
If you can break your work up and check every so often, that's almost always the best solution. But sometimes that's not possible—e.g., maybe you're reading a file off an slow file share that every once in a while just hangs for 30 seconds. To deal with that internally, you'd have to restructure your whole program around an async I/O loop.
If you don't need to be cross-platform, you can use signals on *nix (including Mac and Linux), APCs on Windows, etc. But if you need to be cross-platform, that doesn't work.
So, if you really need to do it concurrently, you can, and sometimes you have to. In that case, you probably want to use a process for this, not a thread. You can't really kill a thread safely, but you can kill a process, and it can be as safe as you want it to be. Also, if the thread is taking 5+ seconds because it's CPU-bound, you don't want to fight with it over the GIL.
There are two basic options here.
First, you can put the code in another script and run it with subprocess:
subprocess.check_call([sys.executable, 'other_script.py', arg, other_arg],
timeout=5)
Since this is going through normal child-process channels, the only communication you can use is some argv strings, a success/failure return value (actually a small integer, but that's not much better), and optionally a hunk of text going in and a chunk of text coming out.
Alternatively, you can use multiprocessing to spawn a thread-like child process:
p = multiprocessing.Process(func, args)
p.start()
p.join(5)
if p.is_alive():
p.terminate()
As you can see, this is a little more complicated, but it's better in a few ways:
You can pass arbitrary Python objects (at least anything that can be pickled) rather than just strings.
Instead of having to put the target code in a completely independent script, you can leave it as a function in the same script.
It's more flexible—e.g., if you later need to, say, pass progress updates, it's very easy to add a queue in either or both directions.
The big problem with any kind of parallelism is sharing mutable data—e.g., having a background task update a global dictionary as part of its work (which your comments say you're trying to do). With threads, you can sort of get away with it, but race conditions can lead to corrupted data, so you have to be very careful with locking. With child processes, you can't get away with it at all. (Yes, you can use shared memory, as Sharing state between processes explains, but this is limited to simple types like numbers, fixed arrays, and types you know how to define as C structures, and it just gets you back to the same problems as threads.)
Ideally, you arrange things so you don't need to share any data while the process is running—you pass in a dict as a parameter and get a dict back as a result. This is usually pretty easy to arrange when you have a previously-synchronous function that you want to put in the background.
But what if, say, a partial result is better than no result? In that case, the simplest solution is to pass the results over a queue. You can do this with an explicit queue, as explained in Exchanging objects between processes, but there's an easier way.
If you can break the monolithic process into separate tasks, one for each value (or group of values) you wanted to stick in the dictionary, you can schedule them on a Pool—or, even better, a concurrent.futures.Executor. (If you're on Python 2.x or 3.1, see the backport futures on PyPI.)
Let's say your slow function looked like this:
def spam():
global d
for meat in get_all_meats():
count = get_meat_count(meat)
d.setdefault(meat, 0) += count
Instead, you'd do this:
def spam_one(meat):
count = get_meat_count(meat)
return meat, count
with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor(max_workers=1) as executor:
results = executor.map(spam_one, get_canned_meats(), timeout=5)
for (meat, count) in results:
d.setdefault(meat, 0) += count
As many results as you get within 5 seconds get added to the dict; if that isn't all of them, the rest are abandoned, and a TimeoutError is raised (which you can handle however you want—log it, do some quick fallback code, whatever).
And if the tasks really are independent (as they are in my stupid little example, but of course they may not be in your real code, at least not without a major redesign), you can parallelize the work for free just by removing that max_workers=1. Then, if you run it on an 8-core machine, it'll kick off 8 workers and given them each 1/8th of the work to do, and things will get done faster. (Usually not 8x as fast, but often 3-6x as fast, which is still pretty nice.)
This seems like a better idea (sorry, I am not sure of the Python names of thing yet):
import signal
def signal_handler(signum, frame):
raise Exception("Timeout!")
signal.signal(signal.SIGALRM, signal_handler)
signal.alarm(3) # Three seconds
try:
for x in range(0, 3):
# Call function A(x)
except Exception, msg:
print "Timeout!"
signal.alarm(0) # Reset
The comments are correct in that you should check inside. Here is a potential solution. Note that an asynchronous function (by using a thread for example) is different from this solution. This is synchronous which means it will still run in series.
import time
for x in range(0,3):
someFunction()
def someFunction():
start = time.time()
while (time.time() - start < 5):
# do your normal function
return;
Say I have a very large list and I'm performing an operation like so:
for item in items:
try:
api.my_operation(item)
except:
print 'error with item'
My issue is two fold:
There are a lot of items
api.my_operation takes forever to return
I'd like to use multi-threading to spin up a bunch of api.my_operations at once so I can process maybe 5 or 10 or even 100 items at once.
If my_operation() returns an exception (because maybe I already processed that item) - that's OK. It won't break anything. The loop can continue to the next item.
Note: this is for Python 2.7.3
First, in Python, if your code is CPU-bound, multithreading won't help, because only one thread can hold the Global Interpreter Lock, and therefore run Python code, at a time. So, you need to use processes, not threads.
This is not true if your operation "takes forever to return" because it's IO-bound—that is, waiting on the network or disk copies or the like. I'll come back to that later.
Next, the way to process 5 or 10 or 100 items at once is to create a pool of 5 or 10 or 100 workers, and put the items into a queue that the workers service. Fortunately, the stdlib multiprocessing and concurrent.futures libraries both wraps up most of the details for you.
The former is more powerful and flexible for traditional programming; the latter is simpler if you need to compose future-waiting; for trivial cases, it really doesn't matter which you choose. (In this case, the most obvious implementation with each takes 3 lines with futures, 4 lines with multiprocessing.)
If you're using 2.6-2.7 or 3.0-3.1, futures isn't built in, but you can install it from PyPI (pip install futures).
Finally, it's usually a lot simpler to parallelize things if you can turn the entire loop iteration into a function call (something you could, e.g., pass to map), so let's do that first:
def try_my_operation(item):
try:
api.my_operation(item)
except:
print('error with item')
Putting it all together:
executor = concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor(10)
futures = [executor.submit(try_my_operation, item) for item in items]
concurrent.futures.wait(futures)
If you have lots of relatively small jobs, the overhead of multiprocessing might swamp the gains. The way to solve that is to batch up the work into larger jobs. For example (using grouper from the itertools recipes, which you can copy and paste into your code, or get from the more-itertools project on PyPI):
def try_multiple_operations(items):
for item in items:
try:
api.my_operation(item)
except:
print('error with item')
executor = concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor(10)
futures = [executor.submit(try_multiple_operations, group)
for group in grouper(5, items)]
concurrent.futures.wait(futures)
Finally, what if your code is IO bound? Then threads are just as good as processes, and with less overhead (and fewer limitations, but those limitations usually won't affect you in cases like this). Sometimes that "less overhead" is enough to mean you don't need batching with threads, but you do with processes, which is a nice win.
So, how do you use threads instead of processes? Just change ProcessPoolExecutor to ThreadPoolExecutor.
If you're not sure whether your code is CPU-bound or IO-bound, just try it both ways.
Can I do this for multiple functions in my python script? For example, if I had another for loop elsewhere in the code that I wanted to parallelize. Is it possible to do two multi threaded functions in the same script?
Yes. In fact, there are two different ways to do it.
First, you can share the same (thread or process) executor and use it from multiple places with no problem. The whole point of tasks and futures is that they're self-contained; you don't care where they run, just that you queue them up and eventually get the answer back.
Alternatively, you can have two executors in the same program with no problem. This has a performance cost—if you're using both executors at the same time, you'll end up trying to run (for example) 16 busy threads on 8 cores, which means there's going to be some context switching. But sometimes it's worth doing because, say, the two executors are rarely busy at the same time, and it makes your code a lot simpler. Or maybe one executor is running very large tasks that can take a while to complete, and the other is running very small tasks that need to complete as quickly as possible, because responsiveness is more important than throughput for part of your program.
If you don't know which is appropriate for your program, usually it's the first.
There's multiprocesing.pool, and the following sample illustrates how to use one of them:
from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool as Pool
# from multiprocessing import Pool
pool_size = 5 # your "parallelness"
# define worker function before a Pool is instantiated
def worker(item):
try:
api.my_operation(item)
except:
print('error with item')
pool = Pool(pool_size)
for item in items:
pool.apply_async(worker, (item,))
pool.close()
pool.join()
Now if you indeed identify that your process is CPU bound as #abarnert mentioned, change ThreadPool to the process pool implementation (commented under ThreadPool import). You can find more details here: http://docs.python.org/2/library/multiprocessing.html#using-a-pool-of-workers
You can split the processing into a specified number of threads using an approach like this:
import threading
def process(items, start, end):
for item in items[start:end]:
try:
api.my_operation(item)
except Exception:
print('error with item')
def split_processing(items, num_splits=4):
split_size = len(items) // num_splits
threads = []
for i in range(num_splits):
# determine the indices of the list this thread will handle
start = i * split_size
# special case on the last chunk to account for uneven splits
end = None if i+1 == num_splits else (i+1) * split_size
# create the thread
threads.append(
threading.Thread(target=process, args=(items, start, end)))
threads[-1].start() # start the thread we just created
# wait for all threads to finish
for t in threads:
t.join()
split_processing(items)
import numpy as np
import threading
def threaded_process(items_chunk):
""" Your main process which runs in thread for each chunk"""
for item in items_chunk:
try:
api.my_operation(item)
except Exception:
print('error with item')
n_threads = 20
# Splitting the items into chunks equal to number of threads
array_chunk = np.array_split(input_image_list, n_threads)
thread_list = []
for thr in range(n_threads):
thread = threading.Thread(target=threaded_process, args=(array_chunk[thr]),)
thread_list.append(thread)
thread_list[thr].start()
for thread in thread_list:
thread.join()
I am running multiple processes from single python code:
Code Snippet:
while 1:
if sqsObject.msgCount() > 0:
ReadyMsg = sqsObject.readM2Q()
if ReadyMsg == 0:
continue
fileName = ReadyMsg['fileName']
dirName = ReadyMsg['dirName']
uuid = ReadyMsg['uid']
guid = ReadyMsg['guid']
callback = ReadyMsg['callbackurl']
# print ("Trigger Algorithm Process")
if(countProcess < maxProcess):
try:
retValue = Process(target=dosomething, args=(dirName, uuid,guid,callback))
processArray.append(retValue)
retValue.start()
countProcess = countProcess + 1
except:
print "Cannot Run Process"
else:
for i in range(len(processArray)):
if (processArray[i].is_alive() == True):
continue
else:
try:
#print 'Restart Process'
processArray[i] = Process(target=dosomething, args=(dirName,uuid,guid,callback))
processArray[i].start()
except:
print "Cannot Run Process"
else: # No more request to service
for i in range(len(processArray)):
if (processArray[i].is_alive() == True):
processRunning = 1
break
else:
continue
if processRunning == 0:
countProcess = 0
else:
processRunning = 0
Here I am reading the messages from the queue and creating a process to run the algorithm on that message. I am putting upper limit of maxProcess. And hence after reaching maxProcess, I want to reuse the processArray slots which are not alive by checking is_alive().
This process runs fine for smaller number of processes however, for large number of messages say 100, Memory consumption goes through roof. I am thinking I have leak by reusing the process slots.
Not sure what is wrong in the process.
Thank you in advance for spotting an error or wise advise.
Your code is, in a word, weird :-)
It's not an mvce, so no one else can test it, but just looking at it, you have this (slightly simplified) structure in the inner loop:
if count < limit:
... start a new process, and increment count ...
else:
do things that can potentially start even more processes
(but never, ever, decrease count)
which seems unwise at best.
There are no invocations of a process instance's join(), anywhere. (We'll get back to the outer loop and its else case in a bit.)
Let's look more closely at the inner loop's else case code:
for i in range(len(processArray)):
if (processArray[i].is_alive() == True):
Leaving aside the unnecessary == True test—which is a bit of a risk, since the is_alive() method does not specifically promise to return True and False, just something that works boolean-ly—consider this description from the documentation (this link goes to py2k docs but py3k is the same, and your print statements imply your code is py2k anyway):
is_alive()
Return whether the process is alive.
Roughly, a process object is alive from the moment the start() method returns until the child process terminates.
Since we can't see the code for dosomething, it's hard to say whether these things ever terminate. Probably they do (by exiting), but if they don't, or don't soon enough, we could get problems here, where we just drop the message we pulled off the queue in the outer loop.
If they do terminate, we just drop the process reference from the array, by overwriting it:
processArray[i] = Process(...)
The previous value in processArray[i] is discarded. It's not clear if you may have saved this anywhere else, but if you have not, the Process instance gets discarded, and now it is actually impossible to call its join() method.
Some Python data structures tend to clean themselves up when abandoned (e.g., open streams flush output and close as needed), but the multiprocess code appears not to auto-join() its children. So this could be the, or a, source of the problem.
Finally, whenever we do get to the else case in the outer loop, we have the same somewhat odd search for any alive processes—which, incidentally, can be written more clearly as:
if any(p.is_alive() for p in processArray):
as long as we don't care about which particular ones are alive, and which are not—and if none report themselves as alive, we reset the count, but never do anything with the variable processArray, so that each processArray[i] still holds the identity of the Process instance. (So at least we could call join on each of these, excluding any lost by overwriting.)
Rather than building your own Pool yourself, you are probably better off using multiprocess.Pool and its apply and apply_async methods, as in miraculixx's answer.
Not sure what is wrong in the process.
It appears you are creating as many processes as there are messages, even when the maxProcess count is reached.
I am thinking I have leak by reusing the process slots.
There is no need to manage the processes yourself. Just use a process pool:
# before your while loop starts
from multiprocessing import Pool
pool = Pool(processes=max_process)
while 1:
...
# instead of creating a new Process
res = pool.apply_async(dosomething,
args=(dirName,uuid,guid,callback))
# after the while loop has finished
# -- wait to finish
pool.close()
pool.join()
Ways to submit jobs
Note that the Pool class supports several ways to submit jobs:
apply_async - one message at a time
map_async - a chunk of messages at a time
If messages arrive fast enough it might be better to collect several of them (say 10 or 100 at a time, depending on the actual processing done) and use map to submit a "mini-batch" to the target function at a time:
...
while True:
messages = []
# build mini-batch of messages
while len(messages) < batch_size:
... # get message
messages.append((dirName,uuid,guid,callback))
pool.map_async(dosomething, messages)
To avoid memory leaks left by dosomething you can ask the Pool to restart a process after it has consumed some number of messages:
max_tasks = 5 # some sensible number
Pool(max_processes, maxtasksperchild=max_tasks)
Going distributed
If with this approach the memory capacity is still exceeded, consider using a distributed approach i.e. add more machines. Using Celery that would be pretty straight forward, coming from the above:
# tasks.py
#task
def dosomething(...):
... # same code as before
# driver.py
while True:
... # get messages as before
res = somefunc.apply_async(args=(dirName,uuid,guid,callback))
In Python, for a toy example:
for x in range(0, 3):
# Call function A(x)
I want to continue the for loop if function A takes more than five seconds by skipping it so I won't get stuck or waste time.
By doing some search, I realized a subprocess or thread may help, but I have no idea how to implement it here.
I think creating a new process may be overkill. If you're on Mac or a Unix-based system, you should be able to use signal.SIGALRM to forcibly time out functions that take too long. This will work on functions that are idling for network or other issues that you absolutely can't handle by modifying your function. I have an example of using it in this answer:
Option for SSH to timeout after a short time? ClientAlive & ConnectTimeout don't seem to do what I need them to do
Editing my answer in here, though I'm not sure I'm supposed to do that:
import signal
class TimeoutException(Exception): # Custom exception class
pass
def timeout_handler(signum, frame): # Custom signal handler
raise TimeoutException
# Change the behavior of SIGALRM
signal.signal(signal.SIGALRM, timeout_handler)
for i in range(3):
# Start the timer. Once 5 seconds are over, a SIGALRM signal is sent.
signal.alarm(5)
# This try/except loop ensures that
# you'll catch TimeoutException when it's sent.
try:
A(i) # Whatever your function that might hang
except TimeoutException:
continue # continue the for loop if function A takes more than 5 second
else:
# Reset the alarm
signal.alarm(0)
This basically sets a timer for 5 seconds, then tries to execute your code. If it fails to complete before time runs out, a SIGALRM is sent, which we catch and turn into a TimeoutException. That forces you to the except block, where your program can continue.
Maybe someone find this decorator useful, based on TheSoundDefense answer:
import time
import signal
class TimeoutException(Exception): # Custom exception class
pass
def break_after(seconds=2):
def timeout_handler(signum, frame): # Custom signal handler
raise TimeoutException
def function(function):
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
signal.signal(signal.SIGALRM, timeout_handler)
signal.alarm(seconds)
try:
res = function(*args, **kwargs)
signal.alarm(0) # Clear alarm
return res
except TimeoutException:
print u'Oops, timeout: %s sec reached.' % seconds, function.__name__, args, kwargs
return
return wrapper
return function
Test:
#break_after(3)
def test(a, b, c):
return time.sleep(10)
>>> test(1,2,3)
Oops, timeout: 3 sec reached. test (1, 2, 3) {}
If you can break your work up and check every so often, that's almost always the best solution. But sometimes that's not possible—e.g., maybe you're reading a file off an slow file share that every once in a while just hangs for 30 seconds. To deal with that internally, you'd have to restructure your whole program around an async I/O loop.
If you don't need to be cross-platform, you can use signals on *nix (including Mac and Linux), APCs on Windows, etc. But if you need to be cross-platform, that doesn't work.
So, if you really need to do it concurrently, you can, and sometimes you have to. In that case, you probably want to use a process for this, not a thread. You can't really kill a thread safely, but you can kill a process, and it can be as safe as you want it to be. Also, if the thread is taking 5+ seconds because it's CPU-bound, you don't want to fight with it over the GIL.
There are two basic options here.
First, you can put the code in another script and run it with subprocess:
subprocess.check_call([sys.executable, 'other_script.py', arg, other_arg],
timeout=5)
Since this is going through normal child-process channels, the only communication you can use is some argv strings, a success/failure return value (actually a small integer, but that's not much better), and optionally a hunk of text going in and a chunk of text coming out.
Alternatively, you can use multiprocessing to spawn a thread-like child process:
p = multiprocessing.Process(func, args)
p.start()
p.join(5)
if p.is_alive():
p.terminate()
As you can see, this is a little more complicated, but it's better in a few ways:
You can pass arbitrary Python objects (at least anything that can be pickled) rather than just strings.
Instead of having to put the target code in a completely independent script, you can leave it as a function in the same script.
It's more flexible—e.g., if you later need to, say, pass progress updates, it's very easy to add a queue in either or both directions.
The big problem with any kind of parallelism is sharing mutable data—e.g., having a background task update a global dictionary as part of its work (which your comments say you're trying to do). With threads, you can sort of get away with it, but race conditions can lead to corrupted data, so you have to be very careful with locking. With child processes, you can't get away with it at all. (Yes, you can use shared memory, as Sharing state between processes explains, but this is limited to simple types like numbers, fixed arrays, and types you know how to define as C structures, and it just gets you back to the same problems as threads.)
Ideally, you arrange things so you don't need to share any data while the process is running—you pass in a dict as a parameter and get a dict back as a result. This is usually pretty easy to arrange when you have a previously-synchronous function that you want to put in the background.
But what if, say, a partial result is better than no result? In that case, the simplest solution is to pass the results over a queue. You can do this with an explicit queue, as explained in Exchanging objects between processes, but there's an easier way.
If you can break the monolithic process into separate tasks, one for each value (or group of values) you wanted to stick in the dictionary, you can schedule them on a Pool—or, even better, a concurrent.futures.Executor. (If you're on Python 2.x or 3.1, see the backport futures on PyPI.)
Let's say your slow function looked like this:
def spam():
global d
for meat in get_all_meats():
count = get_meat_count(meat)
d.setdefault(meat, 0) += count
Instead, you'd do this:
def spam_one(meat):
count = get_meat_count(meat)
return meat, count
with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor(max_workers=1) as executor:
results = executor.map(spam_one, get_canned_meats(), timeout=5)
for (meat, count) in results:
d.setdefault(meat, 0) += count
As many results as you get within 5 seconds get added to the dict; if that isn't all of them, the rest are abandoned, and a TimeoutError is raised (which you can handle however you want—log it, do some quick fallback code, whatever).
And if the tasks really are independent (as they are in my stupid little example, but of course they may not be in your real code, at least not without a major redesign), you can parallelize the work for free just by removing that max_workers=1. Then, if you run it on an 8-core machine, it'll kick off 8 workers and given them each 1/8th of the work to do, and things will get done faster. (Usually not 8x as fast, but often 3-6x as fast, which is still pretty nice.)
This seems like a better idea (sorry, I am not sure of the Python names of thing yet):
import signal
def signal_handler(signum, frame):
raise Exception("Timeout!")
signal.signal(signal.SIGALRM, signal_handler)
signal.alarm(3) # Three seconds
try:
for x in range(0, 3):
# Call function A(x)
except Exception, msg:
print "Timeout!"
signal.alarm(0) # Reset
The comments are correct in that you should check inside. Here is a potential solution. Note that an asynchronous function (by using a thread for example) is different from this solution. This is synchronous which means it will still run in series.
import time
for x in range(0,3):
someFunction()
def someFunction():
start = time.time()
while (time.time() - start < 5):
# do your normal function
return;
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.