How to run 10 python programs simultaneously? - python

I have a_1.py~a_10.py
I want to run 10 python programs in parallel.
I tried:
from multiprocessing import Process
import os
def info(title):
I want to execute python program
def f(name):
for i in range(1, 11):
subprocess.Popen(['python3', f'a_{i}.py'])
if __name__ == '__main__':
info('main line')
p = Process(target=f)
p.start()
p.join()
but it doesn't work
How do I solve this?

I would suggest using the subprocess module instead of multiprocessing:
import os
import subprocess
import sys
MAX_SUB_PROCESSES = 10
def info(title):
print(title, flush=True)
if __name__ == '__main__':
info('main line')
# Create a list of subprocesses.
processes = []
for i in range(1, MAX_SUB_PROCESSES+1):
pgm_path = f'a_{i}.py' # Path to Python program.
command = f'"{sys.executable}" "{pgm_path}" "{os.path.basename(pgm_path)}"'
process = subprocess.Popen(command, bufsize=0)
processes.append(process)
# Wait for all of them to finish.
for process in processes:
process.wait()
print('Done')

If you just need to call 10 external py scripts (a_1.py ~ a_10.py) as a separate processes - use subprocess.Popen class:
import subprocess, sys
for i in range(1, 11):
subprocess.Popen(['python3', f'a_{i}.py'])
# sys.exit() # optional
It's worth to look at a rich subprocess.Popen signature (you may find some useful params/options)

You can use a multiprocessing pool to run them concurrently.
import multiprocessing as mp
def worker(module_name):
""" Executes a module externally with python """
__import__(module_name)
return
if __name__ == "__main__":
max_processes = 5
module_names = [f"a_{i}" for i in range(1, 11)]
print(module_names)
with mp.Pool(max_processes) as pool:
pool.map(worker, module_names)
The max_processes variable is the maximum number of workers to have working at any given time. In other words, its the number of processes spawned by your program. The pool.map(worker, module_names) uses the available processes and calls worker on each item in your module_names list. We don't include the .py because we're running the module by importing it.
Note: This might not work if the code you want to run in your modules is contained inside if __name__ == "__main__" blocks. If that is the case, then my recommendation would be to move all the code in the if __name__ == "__main__" blocks of the a_{} modules into a main function. Additionally, you would have to change the worker to something like:
def worker(module_name):
module = __import__(module_name) # Kind of like 'import module_name as module'
module.main()
return

Related

How dose print() function impact sub process's life cycle in python?

If I use print() function in subprocess, then subprocess will terminate as soone as the main process terminated.
The following programs terminate at the same time.
# main.py
import time
from subprocess import Popen
if __name__ == '__main__':
proc = Popen(['python', 'sub.py'])
# sub.py
for i in range(10):
time.sleep(1)
print(i)
However if I comment the print() in sub.py, then sub process continues after main terminates.
Also, If I redirect it's stdout in main.py (see following) , the sub process continues as well.
# main.py
import time
from subprocess import Popen
if __name__ == '__main__':
with open('a.txt", 'w') as out:
proc = Popen(['python', 'sub.py'],stdout=out)

Python multiprocessing - problem with empty queue and pool freezing

I have problems with python multiprocessing
python version 3.6.6
using Spyder IDE on windows 7
1.
queue is not being populated -> everytime I try to read it, its empty. Somewhere I read, that I have to get() it before process join() but it did not solve it.
from multiprocessing import Process,Queue
# define a example function
def fnc(i, output):
output.put(i)
if __name__ == '__main__':
# Define an output queue
output = Queue()
# Setup a list of processes that we want to run
processes = [Process(target=fnc, args=(i, output)) for i in range(4)]
print('created')
# Run processes
for p in processes:
p.start()
print('started')
# Exit the completed processes
for p in processes:
p.join()
print(output.empty())
print('finished')
>>>created
>>>started
>>>True
>>>finished
I would expect output to not be empty.
if I change it from .join() to
for p in processes:
print(output.get())
#p.join()
it freezes
2.
Next problem I have is with pool.map() - it freezes and has no chance to exceed memory limit. I dont even know how to debug such simple pieace of code.
from multiprocessing import Pool
def f(x):
return x*x
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = Pool(processes=4)
print('Pool created')
# print "[0, 1, 4,..., 81]"
print(pool.map(f, range(10))) # it freezes here
Hope its not a big deal to have two questions in one topic
Apperently the problem is Spyder's IPython console. When I run both from cmd, its executed properly.
Solution
for debugging in Spyder add .dummy to multiprocessing import
from multiprocessing.dummy import Process,Queue
It will not be executed by more processors, but you will get results and can actualy see the output. When debugging is done simply delete .dummy, place it in another file, import it and call it for example as function
multiprocessing_my.py
from multiprocessing import Process,Queue
# define a example function
def fnc(i, output):
output.put(i)
print(i)
def test():
# Define an output queue
output = Queue()
# Setup a list of processes that we want to run
processes = [Process(target=fnc, args=(i, output)) for i in range(4)]
print('created')
# Run processes
for p in processes:
p.start()
print('started')
# Exit the completed processes
for p in processes:
p.join()
print(output.empty())
print('finished')
# Get process results from the output queue
results = [output.get() for p in processes]
print('get results')
print(results)
test_mp.py
executed by selecting code and pressing ctrl+Enter
import multiprocessing_my
multiprocessing_my.test2()
...
In[9]: test()
created
0
1
2
3
started
False
finished
get results
[0, 1, 2, 3]

Python multiprocessing pool never finishes

I am running the following (example) code:
from multiprocessing import Pool
def f(x):
return x*x
pool = Pool(processes=4)
print pool.map(f, range(10))
However, the code never finishes. What am I doing wrong?
The line
pool = Pool(processes=4)
completes successfully, it appears to stop in the last line. Not even pressing ctrl+c interrupts the execution. I am running the code inside an ipython console in Spyder.
from multiprocessing import Pool
def f(x):
return x * x
def main():
pool = Pool(processes=3) # set the processes max number 3
result = pool.map(f, range(10))
pool.close()
pool.join()
print(result)
print('end')
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
The key step is to call pool.close() and pool.join() after the processes finished. Otherwise the pool is not released.
Besides, you should create the pool in the main process by putting the codes within if __name__ == "__main__":
Your constructor is throwing the interpreter off into a thread producing factory for some reason.
You first need to stop all the threads are now running and there will be tons. If you bring up the task manager you will see tons of rogue python.exe tasks. To kill them in bulk try:
taskkill /F /IM python.exe
You would need to do the above a couple of times and make sure the task manager does not show anymore python.exe tasks. This will also kill you spyder instance. So make sure you save.
Now change your code to the following:
from multiprocessing import Pool
def f(x):
return x*x
if (__name__ == '__main__'):
pool = Pool(4)
print pool.map(f, range(10))
Note that I have removed the processes named argument.

Python - How to pass global variable to multiprocessing.Process?

I need to terminate some processes after a while, so I've used sleeping another process for the waiting. But the new process doesn't have access to global variables from the main process I guess. How could I solve it please?
Code:
import os
from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
import time
import multiprocessing
log_file = open('stdout.log', 'a')
log_file.flush()
err_file = open('stderr.log', 'a')
err_file.flush()
processes = []
def processing():
print "processing"
global processes
global log_file
global err_file
for i in range(0, 5):
p = Popen(['java', '-jar', 'C:\\Users\\two\\Documents\\test.jar'], stdout=log_file, stderr=err_file) # something long running
processes.append(p)
print len(processes) # returns 5
def waiting_service():
name = multiprocessing.current_process().name
print name, 'Starting'
global processes
print len(processes) # returns 0
time.sleep(2)
for i in range(0, 5):
processes[i].terminate()
print name, 'Exiting'
if __name__ == '__main__':
processing()
service = multiprocessing.Process(name='waiting_service', target=waiting_service)
service.start()
You should be using synchronization primitives.
Possibly you want to set an Event that's triggered after a while by the main (parent) process.
You may also want to wait for the processes to actually complete and join them (like you would a thread).
If you have many similar tasks, you can use a processing pool like multiprocessing.Pool.
Here is a small example of how it's done:
import multiprocessing
import time
kill_event = multiprocessing.Event()
def work(_id):
while not kill_event.is_set():
print "%d is doing stuff" % _id
time.sleep(1)
print "%d quit" % _id
def spawn_processes():
processes = []
# spawn 10 processes
for i in xrange(10):
# spawn process
process = multiprocessing.Process(target=work, args=(i,))
processes.append(process)
process.start()
time.sleep(1)
# kill all processes by setting the kill event
kill_event.set()
# wait for all processes to complete
for process in processes:
process.join()
print "done!"
spawn_processes()
The whole problem was in Windows' Python. Python for Windows is blocking global variables to be seen in functions. I've switched to linux and my script works OK.
Special thanks to #rchang for his comment:
When I tested it, in both cases the print statement came up with 5. Perhaps we have a version mismatch in some way? I tested it with Python 2.7.6 on Linux kernel 3.13.0 (Mint distribution).

Using Python's Multiprocessing module to execute simultaneous and separate SEAWAT/MODFLOW model runs

I'm trying to complete 100 model runs on my 8-processor 64-bit Windows 7 machine. I'd like to run 7 instances of the model concurrently to decrease my total run time (approx. 9.5 min per model run). I've looked at several threads pertaining to the Multiprocessing module of Python, but am still missing something.
Using the multiprocessing module
How to spawn parallel child processes on a multi-processor system?
Python Multiprocessing queue
My Process:
I have 100 different parameter sets I'd like to run through SEAWAT/MODFLOW to compare the results. I have pre-built the model input files for each model run and stored them in their own directories. What I'd like to be able to do is have 7 models running at a time until all realizations have been completed. There needn't be communication between processes or display of results. So far I have only been able to spawn the models sequentially:
import os,subprocess
import multiprocessing as mp
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
files = []
for f in os.listdir(ws + r'\fieldgen\reals'):
if f.endswith('.npy'):
files.append(f)
## def work(cmd):
## return subprocess.call(cmd, shell=False)
def run(f,def_param=ws):
real = f.split('_')[2].split('.')[0]
print 'Realization %s' % real
mf2k = r'c:\modflow\mf2k.1_19\bin\mf2k.exe '
mf2k5 = r'c:\modflow\MF2005_1_8\bin\mf2005.exe '
seawatV4 = r'c:\modflow\swt_v4_00_04\exe\swt_v4.exe '
seawatV4x64 = r'c:\modflow\swt_v4_00_04\exe\swt_v4x64.exe '
exe = seawatV4x64
swt_nam = ws + r'\reals\real%s\ss\ss.nam_swt' % real
os.system( exe + swt_nam )
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = mp.Pool(processes=mp.cpu_count()-1) #-leave 1 processor available for system and other processes
tasks = range(len(files))
results = []
for f in files:
r = p.map_async(run(f), tasks, callback=results.append)
I changed the if __name__ == 'main': to the following in hopes it would fix the lack of parallelism I feel is being imparted on the above script by the for loop. However, the model fails to even run (no Python error):
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = mp.Pool(processes=mp.cpu_count()-1) #-leave 1 processor available for system and other processes
p.map_async(run,((files[f],) for f in range(len(files))))
Any and all help is greatly appreciated!
EDIT 3/26/2012 13:31 EST
Using the "Manual Pool" method in #J.F. Sebastian's answer below I get parallel execution of my external .exe. Model realizations are called up in batches of 8 at a time, but it doesn't wait for those 8 runs to complete before calling up the next batch and so on:
from __future__ import print_function
import os,subprocess,sys
import multiprocessing as mp
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
def run(f,ws):
real = f.split('_')[-1].split('.')[0]
print('Realization %s' % real)
seawatV4x64 = r'c:\modflow\swt_v4_00_04\exe\swt_v4x64.exe '
swt_nam = ws + r'\reals\real%s\ss\ss.nam_swt' % real
subprocess.check_call([seawatV4x64, swt_nam])
def worker(queue):
"""Process files from the queue."""
for args in iter(queue.get, None):
try:
run(*args)
except Exception as e: # catch exceptions to avoid exiting the
# thread prematurely
print('%r failed: %s' % (args, e,), file=sys.stderr)
def main():
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
wdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\reals')
q = Queue()
for f in os.listdir(wdir):
if f.endswith('.npy'):
q.put_nowait((os.path.join(wdir, f), ws))
# start threads
threads = [Thread(target=worker, args=(q,)) for _ in range(8)]
for t in threads:
t.daemon = True # threads die if the program dies
t.start()
for _ in threads: q.put_nowait(None) # signal no more files
for t in threads: t.join() # wait for completion
if __name__ == '__main__':
mp.freeze_support() # optional if the program is not frozen
main()
No error traceback is available. The run() function performs its duty when called upon a single model realization file as with mutiple files. The only difference is that with multiple files, it is called len(files) times though each of the instances immediately closes and only one model run is allowed to finish at which time the script exits gracefully (exit code 0).
Adding some print statements to main() reveals some information about active thread-counts as well as thread status (note that this is a test on only 8 of the realization files to make the screenshot more manageable, theoretically all 8 files should be run concurrently, however the behavior continues where they are spawn and immediately die except one):
def main():
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
wdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\test')
q = Queue()
for f in os.listdir(wdir):
if f.endswith('.npy'):
q.put_nowait((os.path.join(wdir, f), ws))
# start threads
threads = [Thread(target=worker, args=(q,)) for _ in range(mp.cpu_count())]
for t in threads:
t.daemon = True # threads die if the program dies
t.start()
print('Active Count a',threading.activeCount())
for _ in threads:
print(_)
q.put_nowait(None) # signal no more files
for t in threads:
print(t)
t.join() # wait for completion
print('Active Count b',threading.activeCount())
**The line which reads "D:\\Data\\Users..." is the error information thrown when I manually stop the model from running to completion. Once I stop the model running, the remaining thread status lines get reported and the script exits.
EDIT 3/26/2012 16:24 EST
SEAWAT does allow concurrent execution as I've done this in the past, spawning instances manually using iPython and launching from each model file folder. This time around, I'm launching all model runs from a single location, namely the directory where my script resides. It looks like the culprit may be in the way SEAWAT is saving some of the output. When SEAWAT is run, it immediately creates files pertaining to the model run. One of these files is not being saved to the directory in which the model realization is located, but in the top directory where the script is located. This is preventing any subsequent threads from saving the same file name in the same location (which they all want to do since these filenames are generic and non-specific to each realization). The SEAWAT windows were not staying open long enough for me to read or even see that there was an error message, I only realized this when I went back and tried to run the code using iPython which directly displays the printout from SEAWAT instead of opening a new window to run the program.
I am accepting #J.F. Sebastian's answer as it is likely that once I resolve this model-executable issue, the threading code he has provided will get me where I need to be.
FINAL CODE
Added cwd argument in subprocess.check_call to start each instance of SEAWAT in its own directory. Very key.
from __future__ import print_function
import os,subprocess,sys
import multiprocessing as mp
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
import threading
def run(f,ws):
real = f.split('_')[-1].split('.')[0]
print('Realization %s' % real)
seawatV4x64 = r'c:\modflow\swt_v4_00_04\exe\swt_v4x64.exe '
cwd = ws + r'\reals\real%s\ss' % real
swt_nam = ws + r'\reals\real%s\ss\ss.nam_swt' % real
subprocess.check_call([seawatV4x64, swt_nam],cwd=cwd)
def worker(queue):
"""Process files from the queue."""
for args in iter(queue.get, None):
try:
run(*args)
except Exception as e: # catch exceptions to avoid exiting the
# thread prematurely
print('%r failed: %s' % (args, e,), file=sys.stderr)
def main():
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
wdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\reals')
q = Queue()
for f in os.listdir(wdir):
if f.endswith('.npy'):
q.put_nowait((os.path.join(wdir, f), ws))
# start threads
threads = [Thread(target=worker, args=(q,)) for _ in range(mp.cpu_count()-1)]
for t in threads:
t.daemon = True # threads die if the program dies
t.start()
for _ in threads: q.put_nowait(None) # signal no more files
for t in threads: t.join() # wait for completion
if __name__ == '__main__':
mp.freeze_support() # optional if the program is not frozen
main()
I don't see any computations in the Python code. If you just need to execute several external programs in parallel it is sufficient to use subprocess to run the programs and threading module to maintain constant number of processes running, but the simplest code is using multiprocessing.Pool:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import os
import multiprocessing as mp
def run(filename_def_param):
filename, def_param = filename_def_param # unpack arguments
... # call external program on `filename`
def safe_run(*args, **kwargs):
"""Call run(), catch exceptions."""
try: run(*args, **kwargs)
except Exception as e:
print("error: %s run(*%r, **%r)" % (e, args, kwargs))
def main():
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
workdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\reals')
files = ((os.path.join(workdir, f), ws)
for f in os.listdir(workdir) if f.endswith('.npy'))
# start processes
pool = mp.Pool() # use all available CPUs
pool.map(safe_run, files)
if __name__=="__main__":
mp.freeze_support() # optional if the program is not frozen
main()
If there are many files then pool.map() could be replaced by for _ in pool.imap_unordered(safe_run, files): pass.
There is also mutiprocessing.dummy.Pool that provides the same interface as multiprocessing.Pool but uses threads instead of processes that might be more appropriate in this case.
You don't need to keep some CPUs free. Just use a command that starts your executables with a low priority (on Linux it is a nice program).
ThreadPoolExecutor example
concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor would be both simple and sufficient but it requires 3rd-party dependency on Python 2.x (it is in the stdlib since Python 3.2).
#!/usr/bin/env python
import os
import concurrent.futures
def run(filename, def_param):
... # call external program on `filename`
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
wdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\reals')
files = (os.path.join(wdir, f) for f in os.listdir(wdir) if f.endswith('.npy'))
# start threads
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=8) as executor:
future_to_file = dict((executor.submit(run, f, ws), f) for f in files)
for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(future_to_file):
f = future_to_file[future]
if future.exception() is not None:
print('%r generated an exception: %s' % (f, future.exception()))
# run() doesn't return anything so `future.result()` is always `None`
Or if we ignore exceptions raised by run():
from itertools import repeat
... # the same
# start threads
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=8) as executor:
executor.map(run, files, repeat(ws))
# run() doesn't return anything so `map()` results can be ignored
subprocess + threading (manual pool) solution
#!/usr/bin/env python
from __future__ import print_function
import os
import subprocess
import sys
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
def run(filename, def_param):
... # define exe, swt_nam
subprocess.check_call([exe, swt_nam]) # run external program
def worker(queue):
"""Process files from the queue."""
for args in iter(queue.get, None):
try:
run(*args)
except Exception as e: # catch exceptions to avoid exiting the
# thread prematurely
print('%r failed: %s' % (args, e,), file=sys.stderr)
# start threads
q = Queue()
threads = [Thread(target=worker, args=(q,)) for _ in range(8)]
for t in threads:
t.daemon = True # threads die if the program dies
t.start()
# populate files
ws = r'D:\Data\Users\jbellino\Project\stJohnsDeepening\model\xsec_a'
wdir = os.path.join(ws, r'fieldgen\reals')
for f in os.listdir(wdir):
if f.endswith('.npy'):
q.put_nowait((os.path.join(wdir, f), ws))
for _ in threads: q.put_nowait(None) # signal no more files
for t in threads: t.join() # wait for completion
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

Categories

Resources