I can't find an appropriate method for the next task:
I have an input massive [x1, x2, x3 ... xn] and function that I want to apply to every x from massive f(xi, param) so there are eight possible values of this param, and the result of function doesn't depend from param. So I need to run this function f for all possible values of param at the same time. and it's absolutely not important which function work with which x. it's important to all this eight function f(xi, p1), f(xi, p2)... f(xi, p8) works at the same time and all the x will be processed only once.
Seems pretty straightforward. I don't know what you mean by "all the x will be processed only once", but that doesn't sound possible. The function still has to be called separately for each parameter (Unless some black magician on SO can prove me wrong, which seems likely)
from multiprocessing import Pool
def f(x, param):
...do stuff...
if __name__ == '__main__':
params = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
try:
pool = Pool(8)
pool.starmap(f, [(x,param) for param in params])
except SomeError:
...do error stuff...
finally:
pool.close()
pool.join()
Related
I doing 100 iterations of the function model so, i tried using multiprocessing to distribute the tasks and for getting the final output I tried using queue but it takes too much time, failing the purpose of multiprocessing. How to solve this problem?
def model(X,Y):
ada_clf={}
pred1={}
auc_final=[]
for iteration in range(100):
ada_clf[iteration] = AdaBoostClassifier(DecisionTreeClassifier(),n_estimators=1000,learning_rate=0.001)
ada_clf[iteration].fit(X,Y)
pred1[iteration]=ada_clf[iteration].predict(test1)
individuallabelsfromada1=[]
for i in range(len(test1)):
individuallabelsfromada1.append([])
for j in range(100):
individuallabelsfromada1[i].append(pred1[j][i])
final_labels_ada1=[]
for each in individuallabelsfromada1:
final_labels_ada1.append(find_majority(each))
final=pd.Series(final_labels_ada1)
temp_arr=np.array(final)
total_labels2=pd.Series(temp_arr)
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, total_labels2, pos_label=1)
auc_final.append(auc(fpr,tpr))
q.put(total_labels2)
q1.put(auc_final)
q2.put(ada_clf)
print('done')
overall_labels={}
final_auc={}
final_ada_clf={}
processes=[]
q=Queue()
q1=Queue()
q2=Queue()
for iteration in range(100):
if __name__=='__main__':
p=multiprocessing.Process(target=model,args=(x_train,y_labels,q,q1,q2,))
overall_labels[iteration]=q.get()
final_auc[iteration]=q1.get()
final_ada_clf[iteration]=q2.get()
p.start()
processes.append(p)
for each in processes:
each.join()
Below is my edited version, but returns only single output, i tried using multiple output but could not get it, so settled for only single output i.e. total_labels2:-
##code before this is same as before, only thing changed is arguments of model from def model(X,Y) to def model(repeat,X,Y)
total_labels2 = pd.Series(temp_arr)
return (repeat,total_labels2)
def get_result(total_labels2):
global testover_forall
testover_forall.append(total_labels2)
if __name__ == '__main__':
import multiprocessing as mp
testover_forall = []
pool = mp.Pool(40)
for repeat in range(100):
pool.apply_async(bound_model, args= repeat, x_train, y_train), callback= get_result)
pool.close()
pool.join()
repetations_index=[]
for i in range(100):
repetations_index.append(testover_forall[i][0])
final_last_labels = {}
for i in range(100):
temp = str(i)
final_last_labels[temp] = testover_forall[repetations_index[i]][1]
totally_last_labels=[]
for each in final_last_labels:
temp=np.array(final_last_labels[each])
totally_last_labels.append(temp)
See my comments (actually questions) to your post.
You should be using a multiprocessing pool to limit the number of processes that you create to the number of CPU cores that you have. This will also make it easier to get return values back from your model function instead of writing results to 3 different queues (and you could have written a tuple of 3 values to just one queue). You will, of course, require other import statements and code. Given your use of numpy and other libraries, which may be implemented in C Language, you could also retry running this using threading to see if that helps or hurts performance. Do this by replacing ProcessPoolExecutor with ThreadPoolExecutor in the two places it is referenced.
Note
Any changes that model makes to passed arguments X and Y will not be reflected back to the main process. So if model is called repeatedly with the same arguments over and over, as it appears to be, it's not clear whether each call will return different values, especially if the calls are being done in parallel.
from concurrent.futures import ProcessPoolExecutor
def model(X,Y):
ada_clf={}
pred1={}
auc_final=[]
for iteration in range(100):
ada_clf[iteration] = AdaBoostClassifier(DecisionTreeClassifier(),n_estimators=1000,learning_rate=0.001)
ada_clf[iteration].fit(X,Y)
pred1[iteration]=ada_clf[iteration].predict(test1)
individuallabelsfromada1=[]
for i in range(len(test1)):
individuallabelsfromada1.append([])
for j in range(100):
individuallabelsfromada1[i].append(pred1[j][i])
final_labels_ada1=[]
for each in individuallabelsfromada1:
final_labels_ada1.append(find_majority(each))
final=pd.Series(final_labels_ada1)
temp_arr=np.array(final)
total_labels2=pd.Series(temp_arr)
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, total_labels2, pos_label=1)
auc_final.append(auc(fpr,tpr))
#q.put(total_labels2)
#q1.put(auc_final)
#q2.put(ada_clf)
return total_labels2, auc_final, ada_clf
#print('done')
if __name__ == '__main__':
with ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor:
futures = [executor.submit(model, x_train, y_labels) for iteration in range(100)]
# simple lists will suffice:
overall_labels = []
final_auc = []
final_ada_clf = []
for future in futures:
# get return value and store
total_labels2, auc_final, ada_clf = future.result()
overall_labels.append(total_labels2)
final_auc.append(auc_final)
final_ada_clf.append(ada_clf)
Update
It wasn't clear from the problem specification that the returned results are based on a random number generator and if successive calls to the worker function, model, do not employ a single random number generator across all processes in the multiprocessing pool, then the multiprocessing implementation will clearly return different results than the non-multiprocessing version. And it is not clear from the code provided where the random number generator is being used; it may be in library code that you have no access to. If that is the case, you have two options: (1) Use multithreading instead by changing the import statement as I have indicated in the code below; you may still achieve performance benefits as I have already mentioned or (2) Update the signature to model as follows. You will be passed a new argument, random_generator, that currently supports two methods, randint (like random.randint and random (like random.random), although it should be easy enough to modify the code if you need a different method from module random. You will use this random number generator in place of module random if you are able to. But note that this random generator will run much more slowly than the standard one; this is the price you pay.
Since we are also adding a repetition argument to model (it now has to be the final argument -- note the updated signature below), we can now use method map (no need to use a callback):
def model(X,Y, random_generator, repetition):
...
etc.
from multiprocessing import Pool
# or use the following import instead to use multithreading (but then use standard random generator):
# from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool
import random
from functools import partial
from multiprocessing.managers import BaseManager
class RandomGeneratorManager(BaseManager):
pass
class RandomGenerator:
def __init__(self):
random.seed(0)
def randint(self, a, b):
return random.randint(a, b)
def random(self):
return random.random()
# add other functions if needed
if __name__ == '__main__':
RandomGeneratorManager.register('RandomGenerator', RandomGenerator)
with RandomGeneratorManager() as manager:
random_generator = manager.RandomGenerator()
# why 40? why not use default, which is the number of cpu cores you have?:
pool = Pool(40):
worker = partial(model, x_train, y_labels, random_generator)
results = pool.map(worker, range(100))
I've a global NumPy array ys_final and have defined a function that generates an array ys. The ys array will be generated based on an input parameter and I want to add these ys arrays to the global array, i.e ys_final = ys_final + ys.
The order of addition doesn't matter so I want to use Pool.apply_async() from the multiprocessing library but I can't write to the global array. The code for reference is:
import multiprocessing as mp
ys_final = np.zeros(len)
def ys_genrator(i):
#code to generate ys array
return ys
pool = mp.Pool(mp.cpu_count())
for i in range(3954):
ys_final = ys_final + pool.apply_async(ys_genrator, args=(i)).get()
pool.close()
pool.join()
The above block of code keeps on running forever and nothing happens. I've tried *mp.Process also and still I face the same problem. There I defined a target function that directly adds to the global array but it is also not working as the block keeps running forever. Reference:
def func(i):
#code to generate ys
global ys_final
ys_final = ys_final + ys
for i in range(3954):
p = mp.Process(target=func, args=(i,))
p.start()
p.join()
Any suggestions will be really helpful.
EDIT:
My ys_genrator is a function for linear interpolation. Based on the parameter i which is an index for rows in a 2D image, the function creates an array of interpolated amplitudes that will be superimposed with all the interpolated amplitudes from the image, so ys need to be added to ys_final
The variable len is the length of the interpolated array, which is same for all rows.
For reference, a simpler version of ys_genrator(i) is as follows:
def ys_genrator(i):
ys = np.ones(10)*i
return ys
A few points:
pool.apply_async(ys_genrator, args=(i)) needs to be pool.apply_async(ys_genrator, args=(i,)). Note the comma after the i.
pool.apply_async(ys_genrator, args=(i,)).get() is exactly equivalent to pool.apply(ys.genrator, args=(i,)). That is, you will block because of your immediate call to get and you will have absolutely no parallism. You would need to do all your calls to pool.apply_async and save the returned AsyncResult instances and only then call get on these instances.
If you are running under Windows, you will have a problem. The code that creates new processes must be within a block governed by if __name__ == '__main__':
If you are running under something like Jupyter Notebook or iPython you will have a problem. The worker function, ys_genrator, would need to be in an external file and imported.
Using apply_async for submitting a lot of tasks is inefficient. You are better of using imap or imap_unordered where the tasks get submitted in "chunks" and you can process the results one by one as they become available. But you must choose a "suitable" chunksize argument.
Any code you have at the global level, such as ys_final = np.zeros(len) will be executed by every sub-process if you are running under Windows, and this can be wasteful if the subprocesses do not need to "see" this variable. If they do need to see this variable, be aware that each process in the pool will be working with its own copy of the variable so it better be a read-only usage. Even then, it can be very wasteful of storage if the variable is large. There are ways of sharing such a variable across the processes but it is not perfectly clear whether you need to (you haven't even defined variable len). So it is difficult to give you improved code. However, it appears that your worker function does not need to "see" ys_final, so I will take a shot at an improved solution.
But be aware that if your function ys_genrator is very trivial, nothing will be gained by using multiprocessing because there is overhead in both creating the processing pool and in passing arguments from one process to another. Also, if ys_genrator is using numpy, this can also be a source of problems since numpy uses multiprocessing for some of its own functions and you are better off not mixing numpy with your own multiprocessing.
import multiprocessing as mp
import numpy as np
SIZE = 3
def ys_genrator(i):
#code to generate ys array
# for this dummy example all SIZE entries will end up with the same result:
ys = [i] * SIZE # for example: [1, 1, 1]
return ys
def compute_chunksize(poolsize, iterable_size):
chunksize, remainder = divmod(iterable_size, 4 * poolsize)
if remainder:
chunksize += 1
return chunksize
if __name__ == '__main__':
ys_final = np.zeros(SIZE)
n_iterations = 3954
poolsize = min(mp.cpu_count(), n_iterations)
chunksize = compute_chunksize(poolsize, n_iterations)
print('poolsize =', poolsize, 'chunksize =', chunksize)
pool = mp.Pool(poolsize)
for result in pool.imap_unordered(ys_genrator, range(n_iterations), chunksize):
ys_final += result
print(ys_final)
Prints:
poolsize = 8 chunksize = 124
[7815081. 7815081. 7815081.]
Update
You can also just use:
for result in pool.map(ys_genrator, range(n_iterations)):
ys_final += result
The issue is that when you use method map, the method wants to compute an efficient chunksize argument based on the size of the iterable argument (see my compute_chunksize function above, which is essentially what pool.map will use). But to do this, is will have to first convert the iterable to a list to get its size. If n_iterations is very large, this is not very efficient, although it's probably not an major issue for a size of 3954. Still, you would be better off using my compute_chunksize function in this case since you know the size of the iterable and then pass the chunksize argument explicitly to map as I have done in the code using imap_unordered.
I want to execute f1 and f2 at the same time. but the following code doesn't work!
from multiprocessing import Pool
def f1(x):
return x*x
def f2(x):
return x^2
if __name__ == '__main__':
x1=10
x2=20
p= Pool(2)
out=(p.map([f1, f2], [x1, x2]))
y1=out[0]
y2=out[1]
I believe you'd like to use threading.Thread and shared queue in your code.
from queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
import time
def f1(q, x):
# Sleep function added to compare execution times.
time.sleep(5)
# Instead of returning the result we put it in shared queue.
q.put(x * 2)
def f2(q, x):
time.sleep(5)
q.put(x ^ 2)
if __name__ == '__main__':
x1 = 10
x2 = 20
result_queue = Queue()
# We create two threads and pass shared queue to both of them.
t1 = Thread(target=f1, args=(result_queue, x1))
t2 = Thread(target=f2, args=(result_queue, x2))
# Starting threads...
print("Start: %s" % time.ctime())
t1.start()
t2.start()
# Waiting for threads to finish execution...
t1.join()
t2.join()
print("End: %s" % time.ctime())
# After threads are done, we can read results from the queue.
while not result_queue.empty():
result = result_queue.get()
print(result)
Code above should print output similar to:
Start: Sat Jul 2 20:50:50 2016
End: Sat Jul 2 20:50:55 2016
20
22
As you can see, even though both functions wait 5 seconds to yield their results, they do it in parallel so overall execution time is 5 seconds.
If you care about what function put what result in your queue, I can see two solutions that will allow to determine that. You can either create multiple queues or wrap your results in a tuple.
def f1(q, x):
time.sleep(5)
# Tuple containing function information.
q.put((f1, x * 2))
And for further simplification (especially when you have many functions to deal with) you can decorate your functions (to avoid repeated code and to allow function calls without queue):
def wrap_result(func):
def wrapper(*args):
# Assuming that shared queue is always the last argument.
q = args[len(args) - 1]
# We use it to store the results only if it was provided.
if isinstance(q, Queue):
function_result = func(*args[:-1])
q.put((func, function_result))
else:
function_result = func(*args)
return function_result
return wrapper
#wrap_result
def f1(x):
time.sleep(5)
return x * 2
Note that my decorator was written in a rush and its implementation might need improvements (in case your functions accept kwargs, for instance). If you decide to use it, you'll have to pass your arguments in reverse order: t1 = threading.Thread(target=f1, args=(x1, result_queue)).
A little friendly advice.
"Following code doesn't work" says nothing about the problem. Is it raising an exception? Is it giving unexpected results?
It's important to read error messages. Even more important - to study their meaning. Code that you have provided raises a TypeError with pretty obvious message:
File ".../stack.py", line 16, in <module> out = (p.map([f1, f2], [x1, x2]))
TypeError: 'list' object is not callable
That means first argument of Pool().map() have to be a callable object, a function for instance. Let's see the docs of that method.
Apply func to each element in iterable, collecting the results in a
list that is returned.
It clearly doesn't allow a list of functions to be passed as it's argument.
Here you can read more about Pool().map() method.
I want to execute f1 and f2 at the same time. but the following code doesn't work! ...
out=(p.map([f1, f2], [x1, x2]))
The minimal change to your code is to replace the p.map() call with:
r1 = p.apply_async(f1, [x1])
out2 = f2(x2)
out1 = r1.get()
Though if all you want is to run two function calls concurrently then you don't need the Pool() here, you could just start a Thread/Process manually and use Pipe/Queue to get the result:
#!/usr/bin/env python
from multiprocessing import Process, Pipe
def another_process(f, args, conn):
conn.send(f(*args))
conn.close()
if __name__ == '__main__':
parent_conn, child_conn = Pipe(duplex=False)
p = Process(target=another_process, args=(f1, [x1], child_conn))
p.start()
out2 = f2(x2)
out1 = parent_conn.recv()
p.join()
I understand from simple examples that Pool.map is supposed to behave identically to the 'normal' python code below except in parallel:
def f(x):
# complicated processing
return x+1
y_serial = []
x = range(100)
for i in x: y_serial += [f(x)]
y_parallel = pool.map(f, x)
# y_serial == y_parallel!
However I have two bits of code that I believe should follow this example:
#Linear version
price_datas = []
for csv_file in loop_through_zips(data_directory):
price_datas += [process_bf_data_csv(csv_file)]
#Parallel version
p = Pool()
price_data_parallel = p.map(process_bf_data_csv, loop_through_zips(data_directory))
However the Parallel code doesn't work whereas the Linear code does. From what I can observe, the parallel version appears to be looping through the generator (it's printing out log lines from the generator function) but then not actually performing the "process_bf_data_csv" function. What am I doing wrong here?
.map tries to pull all values from your generator to form it into an iterable before actually starting the work.
Try waiting longer (till the generator runs out) or use multi threading and a queue instead.
I'm looking for a simple process-based parallel map for python, that is, a function
parmap(function,[data])
that would run function on each element of [data] on a different process (well, on a different core, but AFAIK, the only way to run stuff on different cores in python is to start multiple interpreters), and return a list of results.
Does something like this exist? I would like something simple, so a simple module would be nice. Of course, if no such thing exists, I will settle for a big library :-/
I seems like what you need is the map method in multiprocessing.Pool():
map(func, iterable[, chunksize])
A parallel equivalent of the map() built-in function (it supports only
one iterable argument though). It blocks till the result is ready.
This method chops the iterable into a number of chunks which it submits to the
process pool as separate tasks. The (approximate) size of these chunks can be
specified by setting chunksize to a positive integ
For example, if you wanted to map this function:
def f(x):
return x**2
to range(10), you could do it using the built-in map() function:
map(f, range(10))
or using a multiprocessing.Pool() object's method map():
import multiprocessing
pool = multiprocessing.Pool()
print pool.map(f, range(10))
This can be done elegantly with Ray, a system that allows you to easily parallelize and distribute your Python code.
To parallelize your example, you'd need to define your map function with the #ray.remote decorator, and then invoke it with .remote. This will ensure that every instance of the remote function will executed in a different process.
import time
import ray
ray.init()
# Define the function you want to apply map on, as remote function.
#ray.remote
def f(x):
# Do some work...
time.sleep(1)
return x*x
# Define a helper parmap(f, list) function.
# This function executes a copy of f() on each element in "list".
# Each copy of f() runs in a different process.
# Note f.remote(x) returns a future of its result (i.e.,
# an identifier of the result) rather than the result itself.
def parmap(f, list):
return [f.remote(x) for x in list]
# Call parmap() on a list consisting of first 5 integers.
result_ids = parmap(f, range(1, 6))
# Get the results
results = ray.get(result_ids)
print(results)
This will print:
[1, 4, 9, 16, 25]
and it will finish in approximately len(list)/p (rounded up the nearest integer) where p is number of cores on your machine. Assuming a machine with 2 cores, our example will execute in 5/2 rounded up, i.e, in approximately 3 sec.
There are a number of advantages of using Ray over the multiprocessing module. In particular, the same code will run on a single machine as well as on a cluster of machines. For more advantages of Ray see this related post.
Python3's Pool class has a map() method and that's all you need to parallelize map:
from multiprocessing import Pool
with Pool() as P:
xtransList = P.map(some_func, a_list)
Using with Pool() as P is similar to a process pool and will execute each item in the list in parallel. You can provide the number of cores:
with Pool(processes=4) as P:
For those who looking for Python equivalent of R's mclapply(), here is my implementation. It is an improvement of the following two examples:
"Parallelize Pandas map() or apply()", as mentioned by #Rafael
Valero.
How to apply map to functions with multiple arguments.
It can be apply to map functions with single or multiple arguments.
import numpy as np, pandas as pd
from scipy import sparse
import functools, multiprocessing
from multiprocessing import Pool
num_cores = multiprocessing.cpu_count()
def parallelize_dataframe(df, func, U=None, V=None):
#blockSize = 5000
num_partitions = 5 # int( np.ceil(df.shape[0]*(1.0/blockSize)) )
blocks = np.array_split(df, num_partitions)
pool = Pool(num_cores)
if V is not None and U is not None:
# apply func with multiple arguments to dataframe (i.e. involves multiple columns)
df = pd.concat(pool.map(functools.partial(func, U=U, V=V), blocks))
else:
# apply func with one argument to dataframe (i.e. involves single column)
df = pd.concat(pool.map(func, blocks))
pool.close()
pool.join()
return df
def square(x):
return x**2
def test_func(data):
print("Process working on: ", data.shape)
data["squareV"] = data["testV"].apply(square)
return data
def vecProd(row, U, V):
return np.sum( np.multiply(U[int(row["obsI"]),:], V[int(row["obsJ"]),:]) )
def mProd_func(data, U, V):
data["predV"] = data.apply( lambda row: vecProd(row, U, V), axis=1 )
return data
def generate_simulated_data():
N, D, nnz, K = [302, 184, 5000, 5]
I = np.random.choice(N, size=nnz, replace=True)
J = np.random.choice(D, size=nnz, replace=True)
vals = np.random.sample(nnz)
sparseY = sparse.csc_matrix((vals, (I, J)), shape=[N, D])
# Generate parameters U and V which could be used to reconstruct the matrix Y
U = np.random.sample(N*K).reshape([N,K])
V = np.random.sample(D*K).reshape([D,K])
return sparseY, U, V
def main():
Y, U, V = generate_simulated_data()
# find row, column indices and obvseved values for sparse matrix Y
(testI, testJ, testV) = sparse.find(Y)
colNames = ["obsI", "obsJ", "testV", "predV", "squareV"]
dtypes = {"obsI":int, "obsJ":int, "testV":float, "predV":float, "squareV": float}
obsValDF = pd.DataFrame(np.zeros((len(testV), len(colNames))), columns=colNames)
obsValDF["obsI"] = testI
obsValDF["obsJ"] = testJ
obsValDF["testV"] = testV
obsValDF = obsValDF.astype(dtype=dtypes)
print("Y.shape: {!s}, #obsVals: {}, obsValDF.shape: {!s}".format(Y.shape, len(testV), obsValDF.shape))
# calculate the square of testVals
obsValDF = parallelize_dataframe(obsValDF, test_func)
# reconstruct prediction of testVals using parameters U and V
obsValDF = parallelize_dataframe(obsValDF, mProd_func, U, V)
print("obsValDF.shape after reconstruction: {!s}".format(obsValDF.shape))
print("First 5 elements of obsValDF:\n", obsValDF.iloc[:5,:])
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
I know this is an old post, but just in case, I wrote a tool to make this super, super easy called parmapper (I actually call it parmap in my use but the name was taken).
It handles a lot of the setup and deconstruction of processes and adds tons of features. In rough order of importance
Can take lambda and other unpickleable functions
Can apply starmap and other similar call methods to make it very easy to directly use.
Can split amongst both threads and/or processes
Includes features such as progress bars
It does incur a small cost but for most uses, that is negligible.
I hope you find it useful.
(Note: It, like map in Python 3+, returns an iterable so if you expect all results to pass through it immediately, use list())