Is there any argument or options to setup a timeout for Python's subprocess.Popen method?
Something like this:
subprocess.Popen(['..'], ..., timeout=20) ?
I would advise taking a look at the Timer class in the threading module. I used it to implement a timeout for a Popen.
First, create a callback:
def timeout( p ):
if p.poll() is None:
print 'Error: process taking too long to complete--terminating'
p.kill()
Then open the process:
proc = Popen( ... )
Then create a timer that will call the callback, passing the process to it.
t = threading.Timer( 10.0, timeout, [proc] )
t.start()
t.join()
Somewhere later in the program, you may want to add the line:
t.cancel()
Otherwise, the python program will keep running until the timer has finished running.
EDIT: I was advised that there is a race condition that the subprocess p may terminate between the p.poll() and p.kill() calls. I believe the following code can fix that:
import errno
def timeout( p ):
if p.poll() is None:
try:
p.kill()
print 'Error: process taking too long to complete--terminating'
except OSError as e:
if e.errno != errno.ESRCH:
raise
Though you may want to clean the exception handling to specifically handle just the particular exception that occurs when the subprocess has already terminated normally.
subprocess.Popen doesn't block so you can do something like this:
import time
p = subprocess.Popen(['...'])
time.sleep(20)
if p.poll() is None:
p.kill()
print 'timed out'
else:
print p.communicate()
It has a drawback in that you must always wait at least 20 seconds for it to finish.
import subprocess, threading
class Command(object):
def __init__(self, cmd):
self.cmd = cmd
self.process = None
def run(self, timeout):
def target():
print 'Thread started'
self.process = subprocess.Popen(self.cmd, shell=True)
self.process.communicate()
print 'Thread finished'
thread = threading.Thread(target=target)
thread.start()
thread.join(timeout)
if thread.is_alive():
print 'Terminating process'
self.process.terminate()
thread.join()
print self.process.returncode
command = Command("echo 'Process started'; sleep 2; echo 'Process finished'")
command.run(timeout=3)
command.run(timeout=1)
The output of this should be:
Thread started
Process started
Process finished
Thread finished
0
Thread started
Process started
Terminating process
Thread finished
-15
where it can be seen that, in the first execution, the process finished correctly (return code 0), while the in the second one the process was terminated (return code -15).
I haven't tested in windows; but, aside from updating the example command, I think it should work since I haven't found in the documentation anything that says that thread.join or process.terminate is not supported.
You could do
from twisted.internet import reactor, protocol, error, defer
class DyingProcessProtocol(protocol.ProcessProtocol):
def __init__(self, timeout):
self.timeout = timeout
def connectionMade(self):
#defer.inlineCallbacks
def killIfAlive():
try:
yield self.transport.signalProcess('KILL')
except error.ProcessExitedAlready:
pass
d = reactor.callLater(self.timeout, killIfAlive)
reactor.spawnProcess(DyingProcessProtocol(20), ...)
using Twisted's asynchronous process API.
A python subprocess auto-timeout is not built in, so you're going to have to build your own.
This works for me on Ubuntu 12.10 running python 2.7.3
Put this in a file called test.py
#!/usr/bin/python
import subprocess
import threading
class RunMyCmd(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self, cmd, timeout):
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
self.cmd = cmd
self.timeout = timeout
def run(self):
self.p = subprocess.Popen(self.cmd)
self.p.wait()
def run_the_process(self):
self.start()
self.join(self.timeout)
if self.is_alive():
self.p.terminate() #if your process needs a kill -9 to make
#it go away, use self.p.kill() here instead.
self.join()
RunMyCmd(["sleep", "20"], 3).run_the_process()
Save it, and run it:
python test.py
The sleep 20 command takes 20 seconds to complete. If it doesn't terminate in 3 seconds (it won't) then the process is terminated.
el#apollo:~$ python test.py
el#apollo:~$
There is three seconds between when the process is run, and it is terminated.
As of Python 3.3, there is also a timeout argument to the blocking helper functions in the subprocess module.
https://docs.python.org/3/library/subprocess.html
Unfortunately, there isn't such a solution. I managed to do this using a threaded timer that would launch along with the process that would kill it after the timeout but I did run into some stale file descriptor issues because of zombie processes or some such.
No there is no time out. I guess, what you are looking for is to kill the sub process after some time. Since you are able to signal the subprocess, you should be able to kill it too.
generic approach to sending a signal to subprocess:
proc = subprocess.Popen([command])
time.sleep(1)
print 'signaling child'
sys.stdout.flush()
os.kill(proc.pid, signal.SIGUSR1)
You could use this mechanism to terminate after a time out period.
Yes, https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-subprocess2 will extend the Popen module with two additional functions,
Popen.waitUpTo(timeout=seconds)
This will wait up to acertain number of seconds for the process to complete, otherwise return None
also,
Popen.waitOrTerminate
This will wait up to a point, and then call .terminate(), then .kill(), one orthe other or some combination of both, see docs for full details:
http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/kata198/python-subprocess2/blob/master/doc/subprocess2.html
For Linux, you can use a signal. This is platform dependent so another solution is required for Windows. It may work with Mac though.
def launch_cmd(cmd, timeout=0):
'''Launch an external command
It launchs the program redirecting the program's STDIO
to a communication pipe, and appends those responses to
a list. Waits for the program to exit, then returns the
ouput lines.
Args:
cmd: command Line of the external program to launch
time: time to wait for the command to complete, 0 for indefinitely
Returns:
A list of the response lines from the program
'''
import subprocess
import signal
class Alarm(Exception):
pass
def alarm_handler(signum, frame):
raise Alarm
lines = []
if not launch_cmd.init:
launch_cmd.init = True
signal.signal(signal.SIGALRM, alarm_handler)
p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
signal.alarm(timeout) # timeout sec
try:
for line in p.stdout:
lines.append(line.rstrip())
p.wait()
signal.alarm(0) # disable alarm
except:
print "launch_cmd taking too long!"
p.kill()
return lines
launch_cmd.init = False
Related
Right now, I'm using subprocess to run a long-running job in the background. For multiple reasons (PyInstaller + AWS CLI) I can't use subprocess anymore.
Is there an easy way to achieve the same thing as below ? Running a long running python function in a multiprocess pool (or something else) and do real time processing of stdout/stderr ?
import subprocess
process = subprocess.Popen(
["python", "long-job.py"],
stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
shell=True,
)
while True:
out = process.stdout.read(2000).decode()
if not out:
err = process.stderr.read().decode()
else:
err = ""
if (out == "" or err == "") and process.poll() is not None:
break
live_stdout_process(out)
Thanks
getting it cross platform is messy .... first of all windows implementation of non-blocking pipe is not user friendly or portable.
one option is to just have your application read its command line arguments and conditionally execute a file, and you get to use subprocess since you will be launching yourself with different argument.
but to keep it to multiprocessing :
the output must be logged to queues instead of pipes.
you need the child to execute a python file, this can be done using runpy to execute the file as __main__.
this runpy function should run under a multiprocessing child, this child must first redirect its stdout and stderr in the initializer.
when an error happens, your main application must catch it .... but if it is too busy reading the output it won't be able to wait for the error, so a child thread has to start the multiprocess and wait for the error.
the main process has to create the queues and launch the child thread and read the output.
putting it all together:
import multiprocessing
from multiprocessing import Queue
import sys
import concurrent.futures
import threading
import traceback
import runpy
import time
class StdoutQueueWrapper:
def __init__(self,queue:Queue):
self._queue = queue
def write(self,text):
self._queue.put(text)
def flush(self):
pass
def function_to_run():
# runpy.run_path("long-job.py",run_name="__main__") # run long-job.py
print("hello") # print something
raise ValueError # error out
def initializer(stdout_queue: Queue,stderr_queue: Queue):
sys.stdout = StdoutQueueWrapper(stdout_queue)
sys.stderr = StdoutQueueWrapper(stderr_queue)
def thread_function(child_stdout_queue,child_stderr_queue):
with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor(1, initializer=initializer,
initargs=(child_stdout_queue, child_stderr_queue)) as pool:
result = pool.submit(function_to_run)
try:
result.result()
except Exception as e:
child_stderr_queue.put(traceback.format_exc())
if __name__ == "__main__":
child_stdout_queue = multiprocessing.Queue()
child_stderr_queue = multiprocessing.Queue()
child_thread = threading.Thread(target=thread_function,args=(child_stdout_queue,child_stderr_queue),daemon=True)
child_thread.start()
while True:
while not child_stdout_queue.empty():
var = child_stdout_queue.get()
print(var,end='')
while not child_stderr_queue.empty():
var = child_stderr_queue.get()
print(var,end='')
if not child_thread.is_alive():
break
time.sleep(0.01) # check output every 0.01 seconds
Note that a direct consequence of running as a multiprocess is that if the child runs into a segmentation fault or some unrecoverable error the parent will also die, hencing running yourself under subprocess might seem a better option if segfaults are expected.
To start, I'm aware this looks like a duplicate. I've been reading:
Python subprocess readlines() hangs
Python Subprocess readline hangs() after reading all input
subprocess readline hangs waiting for EOF
But these options either straight don't work or I can't use them.
The Problem
# Obviously, swap HOSTNAME1 and HOSTNAME2 with something real
cmd = "ssh -N -f -L 1111:<HOSTNAME1>:80 <HOSTNAME2>"
p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, shell=True, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT, env=os.environ)
while True:
out = p.stdout.readline()
# Hangs here ^^^^^^^ forever
out = out.decode('utf-8')
if out:
print(out)
if p.poll() is not None:
break
My dilemma is that the function calling the subprocess.Popen() is a library function for running bash commands, so it needs to be very generic and has the following restrictions:
Must display output as it comes in; not block and then spam the screen all at once
Can't use multiprocessing in case the parent caller is multiprocessing the library function (Python doesn't allow child processes to have child processes)
Can't use signal.SIGALRM for the same reason as multiprocessing; the parent caller may be trying to set their own timeout
Can't use third party non-built-in modules
Threading straight up doesn't work. When the readline() call is in a thread, thread.join(timeout=1)lets the program continue, but ctrl+c doesn't work on it at all, and calling sys.exit() doesn't exit the program, since the thread is still open. And as you know, you can't kill a thread in python by design.
No manner of bufsize or other subprocess args seems to make a difference; neither does putting readline() in an iterator.
I would have a workable solution if I could kill a thread, but that's super taboo, even though this is definitely a legitimate use case.
I'm open to any ideas.
One option is to use a thread to publish to a queue. Then you can block on the queue with a timeout. You can make the reader thread a daemon so it won't prevent system exit. Here's a sketch:
import subprocess
from threading import Thread
from queue import Queue
def reader(stream, queue):
while True:
line = stream.readline()
queue.put(line)
if not line:
break
p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, ...)
queue = Queue()
thread = Thread(target=reader, args=(p.stdout, queue))
thread.daemon = True
thread.start()
while True:
out = queue.get(timeout=1) # timeout is optional
if not out: # Reached end of stream
break
... # Do whatever with output
# Output stream was closed but process may still be running
p.wait()
Note that you should adapt this answer to your particular use case. For example, you may want to add a way to signal to the reader thread to stop running before reaching the end of stream.
Another option would be to poll the input stream, like in this question: timeout on subprocess readline in python
I finally got a working solution; the key piece of information I was missing was thread.daemon = True, which #augurar pointed out in their answer.
Setting thread.daemon = True allows the thread to be terminated when the main process terminates; therefore unblocking my use of a sub-thread to monitor readline().
Here is a sample implementation of my solution; I used a Queue() object to pass strings to the main process, and I implemented a 3 second timer for cases like the original problem I was trying to solve where the subprocess has finished and terminated, but the readline() is hung for some reason.
This also helps avoid a race condition between which thing finishes first.
This works for both Python 2 and 3.
import sys
import threading
import subprocess
from datetime import datetime
try:
import queue
except:
import Queue as queue # Python 2 compatibility
def _monitor_readline(process, q):
while True:
bail = True
if process.poll() is None:
bail = False
out = ""
if sys.version_info[0] >= 3:
out = process.stdout.readline().decode('utf-8')
else:
out = process.stdout.readline()
q.put(out)
if q.empty() and bail:
break
def bash(cmd):
# Kick off the command
process = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT, shell=True)
# Create the queue instance
q = queue.Queue()
# Kick off the monitoring thread
thread = threading.Thread(target=_monitor_readline, args=(process, q))
thread.daemon = True
thread.start()
start = datetime.now()
while True:
bail = True
if process.poll() is None:
bail = False
# Re-set the thread timer
start = datetime.now()
out = ""
while not q.empty():
out += q.get()
if out:
print(out)
# In the case where the thread is still alive and reading, and
# the process has exited and finished, give it up to 3 seconds
# to finish reading
if bail and thread.is_alive() and (datetime.now() - start).total_seconds() < 3:
bail = False
if bail:
break
# To demonstrate output in realtime, sleep is called in between these echos
bash("echo lol;sleep 2;echo bbq")
I'm developing a process scheduler in Python. The idea is to create several threads from the main function and start an external process in each of these threads. The external process should continue to run until either it's finished or the main thread decides to stop it (by sending a kill signal) because the process' CPU time limit is exceeded.
The problem is that sometimes the Popen call blocks and fails to return. This code reproduces the problem with ~50% probability on my system (Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS):
import os, time, threading, sys
from subprocess import Popen
class Process:
def __init__(self, args):
self.args = args
def run(self):
print("Run subprocess: " + " ".join(self.args))
retcode = -1
try:
self.process = Popen(self.args)
print("started a process")
while self.process.poll() is None:
# in the real code, check for the end condition here and send kill signal if required
time.sleep(1.0)
retcode = self.process.returncode
except:
print("unexpected error:", sys.exc_info()[0])
print("process done, returned {}".format(retcode))
return retcode
def main():
processes = [Process(["/bin/cat"]) for _ in range(4)]
# start all processes
for p in processes:
t = threading.Thread(target=Process.run, args=(p,))
t.daemon = True
t.start()
print("all threads started")
# wait for Ctrl+C
while True:
time.sleep(1.0)
main()
The output indicates that only 3 Popen() calls have returned:
Run subprocess: /bin/cat
Run subprocess: /bin/cat
Run subprocess: /bin/cat
Run subprocess: /bin/cat
started a process
started a process
started a process
all threads started
However, running ps shows that all four processes have in fact been started!
The problem does not show up when using Python 3.4, but I want to keep Python 2.7 compatibility.
Edit: the problem also goes away if I add some delay before starting each subsequent thread.
Edit 2: I did a bit of investigation and the blocking is caused by line 1308 in subprocess.py module, which tries to do some reading from a pipe in the parent process:
data = _eintr_retry_call(os.read, errpipe_read, 1048576)
There are a handful of bugs in python 2.7's subprocess module that can result in deadlock when calling the Popen constructor from multiple threads. They are fixed in later versions of Python, 3.2+ IIRC.
You may find that using the subprocess32 backport of Python 3.2/3.3's subprocess module resolves your issue.
*I was unable to locate the link to the actual bug report, but encountered it recently when dealing with a similar issue.
I am using python 2.7 and Python thread doesn't kill its process after the main program exits. (checking this with the ps -ax command on ubuntu machine)
I have the below thread class,
import os
import threading
class captureLogs(threading.Thread):
'''
initialize the constructor
'''
def __init__(self, deviceIp, fileTag):
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
super(captureLogs, self).__init__()
self._stop = threading.Event()
self.deviceIp = deviceIp
self.fileTag = fileTag
def stop(self):
self._stop.set()
def stopped(self):
return self._stop.isSet()
'''
define the run method
'''
def run(self):
'''
Make the thread capture logs
'''
cmdTorun = "adb logcat > " + self.deviceIp +'_'+self.fileTag+'.log'
os.system(cmdTorun)
And I am creating a thread in another file sample.py,
import logCapture
import os
import time
c = logCapture.captureLogs('100.21.143.168','somefile')
c.setDaemon(True)
c.start()
print "Started the log capture. now sleeping. is this a dameon?", c.isDaemon()
time.sleep(5)
print "Sleep tiime is over"
c.stop()
print "Calling stop was successful:", c.stopped()
print "Thread is now completed and main program exiting"
I get the below output from the command line:
Started the log capture. now sleeping. is this a dameon? True
Sleep tiime is over
Calling stop was successful: True
Thread is now completed and main program exiting
And the sample.py exits.
But when I use below command on a terminal,
ps -ax | grep "adb"
I still see the process running. (I am killing them manually now using the kill -9 17681 17682)
Not sure what I am missing here.
My question is,
1) why is the process still alive when I already killed it in my program?
2) Will it create any problem if I don't bother about it?
3) is there any other better way to capture logs using a thread and monitor the logs?
EDIT: As suggested by #bug Killer, I added the below method in my thread class,
def getProcessID(self):
return os.getpid()
and used os.kill(c.getProcessID(), SIGTERM) in my sample.py . The program doesn't exit at all.
It is likely because you are using os.system in your thread. The spawned process from os.system will stay alive even after the thread is killed. Actually, it will stay alive forever unless you explicitly terminate it in your code or by hand (which it sounds like you are doing ultimately) or the spawned process exits on its own. You can do this instead:
import atexit
import subprocess
deviceIp = '100.21.143.168'
fileTag = 'somefile'
# this is spawned in the background, so no threading code is needed
cmdTorun = "adb logcat > " + deviceIp +'_'+fileTag+'.log'
proc = subprocess.Popen(cmdTorun, shell=True)
# or register proc.kill if you feel like living on the edge
atexit.register(proc.terminate)
# Here is where all the other awesome code goes
Since all you are doing is spawning a process, creating a thread to do it is overkill and only complicates your program logic. Just spawn the process in the background as shown above and then let atexit terminate it when your program exits. And/or call proc.terminate explicitly; it should be fine to call repeatedly (much like close on a file object) so having atexit call it again later shouldn't hurt anything.
I need to show some progress bar or something while spawning and running subprocess.
How can I do that with python?
import subprocess
cmd = ['python','wait.py']
p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, bufsize=1024,stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
p.stdin.close()
outputmessage = p.stdout.read() #This will print the standard output from the spawned process
message = p.stderr.read()
I could spawn subprocess with this code, but I need to print out something when each second is passing.
Since the subprocess call is blocking, one way to print something out while waiting would be to use multithreading. Here's an example using threading._Timer:
import threading
import subprocess
class RepeatingTimer(threading._Timer):
def run(self):
while True:
self.finished.wait(self.interval)
if self.finished.is_set():
return
else:
self.function(*self.args, **self.kwargs)
def status():
print "I'm alive"
timer = RepeatingTimer(1.0, status)
timer.daemon = True # Allows program to exit if only the thread is alive
timer.start()
proc = subprocess.Popen([ '/bin/sleep', "5" ])
proc.wait()
timer.cancel()
On an unrelated note, calling stdout.read() while using multiple pipes can lead to deadlock. The subprocess.communicate() function should be used instead.
As far as I see it all you need to do is put those reads in a loop with a delay and a print - does it have to be precisely a second or around about a second?