I need to make script which on some condition spawns parallel proccess (worker) and makes it to do some IO job. And when it finished - close that process.
But looks like the processes do not tend co exit by default.
Here is my approach:
import multiprocessing
pool = multiprocessing.Pool(4)
def f(x):
sleep(10)
print(x)
return True
r = pool.map_async(f, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10])
But it I run it in the ipython and whait for all prints, after this I can run ps aux | grep ipython and see a lot of processes. So looks like these workers are still alive.
Maybe I'm doind something wrong, but how can I get make these processes terminate when they finished their task? And what approach should I use if I want to spawn a lot of workers one by one (by getting some rmq message, for example)?
Pool spawns worker processes when you declare the pool. They do not get killed until the pool is shut down. Instead, they wait there for more work to appear in the queue.
If you change your code to:
r = pool.map_async(f, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10])
pool.close()
pool.join()
print "check ps ax now"
sleep (10)
you will see the pool processes have disappeared.
Another thing, your program might not work as intended as you declare function f after you declare your pool. I had to change pool = multiprocessing.Pool(4) to follow function f declaration, but this may vary between Python versions. Anyway, if you get odd "module has no attribute" -exceptions, this is the reason.
Hannu
Related
I am trying to terminate the processes belonging to a pool. The pool processes are carrying out calculations and a stop button in a Gui should end these calculations.
It seems the simple way to do this is by calling pool.terminate(). This option isn't available to me because I don't have access to the pool variable in my scope. It was created in a file that I'd rather not edit.
I tried an approach by terminating the processes by process ID. I get the pids from a list created by active_children. But it seems that os.kill has no effect as all the processes are still there. Where did I go wrong/how can I solve this? I'd appreciate any help.
Below is a minimal, reproducable example. Also if my post indicates an obvious lack of knowledge, it's probably true and I apologize. thank you
from multiprocessing import Pool
from multiprocessing import active_children
import os, signal
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = Pool()
print(active_children())
for process in active_children():
pid = process.pid
os.kill(pid, signal.SIGTERM)
print(active_children()) #same output as previous print statement
pool.terminate()
print(active_children()) #returns an empty list
I am using multiprocessing python module to run parallel and unrelated jobs with a function similar to the following example:
import numpy as np
from multiprocessing import Pool
def myFunction(arg1):
name = "file_%s.npy"%arg1
A = np.load(arg1)
A[A<0] = np.nan
np.save(arg1,A)
if(__name__ == "__main__"):
N = list(range(50))
with Pool(4) as p:
p.map_async(myFunction, N)
p.close() # I tried with and without that statement
p.join() # I tried with and without that statement
DoOtherStuff()
My problem is that the function DoOtherStuff is never executed, the processes switches into sleep mode on top and I need to kill it with ctrl+C to stop it.
Any suggestions?
You have at least a couple problems. First, you are using map_async() which does not block until the results of the task are completed. So what you're doing is starting the task with map_async(), but then immediately closes and terminates the pool (the with statement calls Pool.terminate() upon exiting).
When you add tasks to a Process pool with methods like map_async it adds tasks to a task queue which is handled by a worker thread which takes tasks off that queue and farms them out to worker processes, possibly spawning new processes as needed (actually there is a separate thread which handles that).
Point being, you have a race condition where you're terminating the Pool likely before any tasks are even started. If you want your script to block until all the tasks are done just use map() instead of map_async(). For example, I rewrote your script like this:
import numpy as np
from multiprocessing import Pool
def myFunction(N):
A = np.load(f'file_{N:02}.npy')
A[A<0] = np.nan
np.save(f'file2_{N:02}.npy', A)
def DoOtherStuff():
print('done')
if __name__ == "__main__":
N = range(50)
with Pool(4) as p:
p.map(myFunction, N)
DoOtherStuff()
I don't know what your use case is exactly, but if you do want to use map_async(), so that this task can run in the background while you do other stuff, you have to leave the Pool open, and manage the AsyncResult object returned by map_async():
result = pool.map_async(myFunction, N)
DoOtherStuff()
# Is my map done yet? If not, we should still block until
# it finishes before ending the process
result.wait()
pool.close()
pool.join()
You can see more examples in the linked documentation.
I don't know why in your attempt you got a deadlock--I was not able to reproduce that. It's possible there was a bug at some point that was then fixed, though you were also possibly invoking undefined behavior with your race condition, as well as calling terminate() on a pool after it's already been join()ed. As for your why your answer did anything at all, it's possible that with the multiple calls to apply_async() you managed to skirt around the race condition somewhat, but this is not at all guaranteed to work.
When is it necessary to call .join() and .close() on a Pool in the case below? Reading the docs, it looks like it is for waiting for the processes to finish. For instance, if I do something like this:
while True:
pool = Pool(processes=4)
results = []
for x in range(1000):
result = pool.apply_async(f, (x,))
results.append(result)
for result in results:
result.get(timeout=1)
print "finished"
Do I still need to wait for the other process to finish with join() and close()? As I assume, that since I am iterating over all async results and waiting (blocking) for them to finish, by the time I get to print finished, all processes will have exited already?
Is this correct?
Also when do the processes start working on a function? I noticed that there are 4 processes running in parallel with ps -elf. Do the processes only start to work on the function after result.get() is called in this case?
close()
Prevents any more tasks from being submitted to the pool. Once all the tasks have been completed the worker processes will exit.
join()
Wait for all processes to properly terminate
Good link to start with Proper way to use multiprocessor.Pool in a nested loop
As soon as you call pool.apply_async the process will start working on the function, it'll return a result object
I've been trying to write an interactive wrapper (for use in ipython) for a library that controls some hardware. Some calls are heavy on the IO so it makes sense to carry out the tasks in parallel. Using a ThreadPool (almost) works nicely:
from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool
class hardware():
def __init__(IPaddress):
connect_to_hardware(IPaddress)
def some_long_task_to_hardware(wtime):
wait(wtime)
result = 'blah'
return result
pool = ThreadPool(processes=4)
Threads=[]
h=[hardware(IP1),hardware(IP2),hardware(IP3),hardware(IP4)]
for tt in range(4):
task=pool.apply_async(h[tt].some_long_task_to_hardware,(1000))
threads.append(task)
alive = [True]*4
Try:
while any(alive) :
for tt in range(4): alive[tt] = not threads[tt].ready()
do_other_stuff_for_a_bit()
except:
#some command I cannot find that will stop the threads...
raise
for tt in range(4): print(threads[tt].get())
The problem comes if the user wants to stop the process or there is an IO error in do_other_stuff_for_a_bit(). Pressing Ctrl+C stops the main process but the worker threads carry on running until their current task is complete.
Is there some way to stop these threads without having to rewrite the library or have the user exit python? pool.terminate() and pool.join() that I have seen used in other examples do not seem to do the job.
The actual routine (instead of the simplified version above) uses logging and although all the worker threads are shut down at some point, I can see the processes that they started running carry on until complete (and being hardware I can see their effect by looking across the room).
This is in python 2.7.
UPDATE:
The solution seems to be to switch to using multiprocessing.Process instead of a thread pool. The test code I tried is to run foo_pulse:
class foo(object):
def foo_pulse(self,nPulse,name): #just one method of *many*
print('starting pulse for '+name)
result=[]
for ii in range(nPulse):
print('on for '+name)
time.sleep(2)
print('off for '+name)
time.sleep(2)
result.append(ii)
return result,name
If you try running this using ThreadPool then ctrl-C does not stop foo_pulse from running (even though it does kill the threads right away, the print statements keep on coming:
from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool
import time
def test(nPulse):
a=foo()
pool=ThreadPool(processes=4)
threads=[]
for rn in range(4) :
r=pool.apply_async(a.foo_pulse,(nPulse,'loop '+str(rn)))
threads.append(r)
alive=[True]*4
try:
while any(alive) : #wait until all threads complete
for rn in range(4):
alive[rn] = not threads[rn].ready()
time.sleep(1)
except : #stop threads if user presses ctrl-c
print('trying to stop threads')
pool.terminate()
print('stopped threads') # this line prints but output from foo_pulse carried on.
raise
else :
for t in threads : print(t.get())
However a version using multiprocessing.Process works as expected:
import multiprocessing as mp
import time
def test_pro(nPulse):
pros=[]
ans=[]
a=foo()
for rn in range(4) :
q=mp.Queue()
ans.append(q)
r=mp.Process(target=wrapper,args=(a,"foo_pulse",q),kwargs={'args':(nPulse,'loop '+str(rn))})
r.start()
pros.append(r)
try:
for p in pros : p.join()
print('all done')
except : #stop threads if user stops findRes
print('trying to stop threads')
for p in pros : p.terminate()
print('stopped threads')
else :
print('output here')
for q in ans :
print(q.get())
print('exit time')
Where I have defined a wrapper for the library foo (so that it did not need to be re-written). If the return value is not needed the neither is this wrapper :
def wrapper(a,target,q,args=(),kwargs={}):
'''Used when return value is wanted'''
q.put(getattr(a,target)(*args,**kwargs))
From the documentation I see no reason why a pool would not work (other than a bug).
This is a very interesting use of parallelism.
However, if you are using multiprocessing, the goal is to have many processes running in parallel, as opposed to one process running many threads.
Consider these few changes to implement it using multiprocessing:
You have these functions that will run in parallel:
import time
import multiprocessing as mp
def some_long_task_from_library(wtime):
time.sleep(wtime)
class MyException(Exception): pass
def do_other_stuff_for_a_bit():
time.sleep(5)
raise MyException("Something Happened...")
Let's create and start the processes, say 4:
procs = [] # this is not a Pool, it is just a way to handle the
# processes instead of calling them p1, p2, p3, p4...
for _ in range(4):
p = mp.Process(target=some_long_task_from_library, args=(1000,))
p.start()
procs.append(p)
mp.active_children() # this joins all the started processes, and runs them.
The processes are running in parallel, presumably in a separate cpu core, but that is to the OS to decide. You can check in your system monitor.
In the meantime you run a process that will break, and you want to stop the running processes, not leaving them orphan:
try:
do_other_stuff_for_a_bit()
except MyException as exc:
print(exc)
print("Now stopping all processes...")
for p in procs:
p.terminate()
print("The rest of the process will continue")
If it doesn't make sense to continue with the main process when one or all of the subprocesses have terminated, you should handle the exit of the main program.
Hope it helps, and you can adapt bits of this for your library.
In answer to the question of why pool did not work then this is due to (as quoted in the Documentation) then main needs to be importable by the child processes and due to the nature of this project interactive python is being used.
At the same time it was not clear why ThreadPool would - although the clue is right there in the name. ThreadPool creates its pool of worker processes using multiprocessing.dummy which as noted here is just a wrapper around the Threading module. Pool uses the multiprocessing.Process. This can be seen by this test:
p=ThreadPool(processes=3)
p._pool[0]
<DummyProcess(Thread23, started daemon 12345)> #no terminate() method
p=Pool(processes=3)
p._pool[0]
<Process(PoolWorker-1, started daemon)> #has handy terminate() method if needed
As threads do not have a terminate method the worker threads carry on running until they have completed their current task. Killing threads is messy (which is why I tried to use the multiprocessing module) but solutions are here.
The one warning about the solution using the above:
def wrapper(a,target,q,args=(),kwargs={}):
'''Used when return value is wanted'''
q.put(getattr(a,target)(*args,**kwargs))
is that changes to attributes inside the instance of the object are not passed back up to the main program. As an example the class foo above can also have methods such as:
def addIP(newIP):
self.hardwareIP=newIP
A call to r=mp.Process(target=a.addIP,args=(127.0.0.1)) does not update a.
The only way round this for a complex object seems to be shared memory using a custom manager which can give access to both the methods and attributes of object a For a very large complex object based on a library this may be best done using dir(foo) to populate the manager. If I can figure out how I'll update this answer with an example (for my future self as much as others).
If for some reasons using threads is preferable, we can use this.
We can send some siginal to the threads we want to terminate. The simplest siginal is global variable:
import time
from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool
_FINISH = False
def hang():
while True:
if _FINISH:
break
print 'hanging..'
time.sleep(10)
def main():
global _FINISH
pool = ThreadPool(processes=1)
pool.apply_async(hang)
time.sleep(10)
_FINISH = True
pool.terminate()
pool.join()
print 'main process exiting..'
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Im trying to do things concurrently in my program and to throttle the number of processes opened at the same time (10).
from multiprocessing import Process
from threading import BoundedSemaphore
semaphore = BoundedSemaphore(10)
for x in xrange(100000):
semaphore.acquire(blocking=True)
print 'new'
p = Process(target=f, args=(x,))
p.start()
def f(x):
... # do some work
semaphore.release()
print 'done'
The first 10 processes are launched and they end correctly (I see 10 "new" and "done" on the console), and then nothing. I don't see another "new", the program just hangs there (and Ctrl-C doesn't work either). What's wrong ?
Your problem is the use of threading.BoundedSemaphore across process boundaries:
import threading
import multiprocessing
import time
semaphore = threading.BoundedSemaphore(10)
def f(x):
semaphore.release()
print('done')
semaphore.acquire(blocking=True)
print('new')
print(semaphore._value)
p = multiprocessing.Process(target=f, args=(100,))
p.start()
time.sleep(3)
print(semaphore._value)
When you create a new process, the child gets a copy of the parent process's memory. Thus the child is decrementing it's semaphore, and the semaphore in the parent is untouched. (Typically, processes are isolated from each other: it takes some extra work to communicate across processes; this is what multiprocessing is for.)
This is opposed to threads, where the two threads share the memory space, and are considered the same process.
multiprocessing.BoundedSemaphore is probably what you want. (If you replace threading.BoundedSemaphore with it, and replace semaphore._value with semaphore.get_value()`, you'll see the above's output change.)
Your bounded semaphore is not shared properly between the various processes which are being spawned; you might want to switch to using multiprocessing.BoundedSemaphore. See the answers to this question for some more details.