Based on my understanding, threads cannot be executed in parallel(executed based on availability and random) and thats the reason Eventlet are being used.
If Eventlets are more for parallelism why can't we just use multiprocessing module of Python.
I thought of executing multi process modules and use the join method() to check if all the process are complete.
Can someone explain if my understanding is correct?
Based on my understanding, threads cannot be executed in parallel (executed based on availability and random)
Correct
and thats the reason Eventlet are being used.
Not so correct. The Eventlet library is used to simplify non-blocking IO programming. It does not actually add parallelism. Thread execution is still limited to one thread at a time due to the GIL. But it is used because it greatly simplifies the process of launching, scheduling, and managing IO-bound threads, particularly ones that do not need to interact with each other.
If Eventlets are more for parallelism
As I just mentioned, this is not what they exist for.
why can't we just use multiprocessing module of Python. I thought of executing multi process modules and use the join method() to check if all the process are complete.
You certainly can! And you will get actual parallel execution with this approach. But you may not get the same speedup. The multiprocessing library is better suited for CPU-bound parallel tasks, because those are the ones that need more frequent access to the interpreter. You may actually see an increase in execution time when using multiprocessing with IO-bound tasks because of the overhead of multiple process execution and management.
As is the case with most optimization and execution time questions, trying both and profiling is the surefire way to guarantee you're using the "best" option for your application. Though you may find that if you write the code to utilize Eventlets first, then try to modify it to use regular threads or multiprocessing, you'll have to write more boilerplate code just to manage the threads or processes, and the value of Eventlets should become more obvious.
Related
I'm currently working on Python project that receives a lot os AWS SQS messages (more than 1 million each day), process these messages, and send then to another SQS queue with additional data. Everything works fine, but now we need to speed up this process a lot!
From what we have seen, or biggest bottleneck is in regards to HTTP requests to send and receive messages from AWS SQS api. So basically, our code is mostly I/O bound due to these HTTP requests.
We are trying to escalate this process by one of the following methods:
Using Python's multiprocessing: this seems like a good idea, but our workers run on small machines, usually with a single core. So creating different process may still give some benefit, since the CPU will probably change process as one or another is stuck at an I/O operation. But still, that seems a lot of overhead of process managing and resources for an operations that doesn't need to run in parallel, but concurrently.
Using Python's threading: since GIL locks all threads at a single core, and threads have less overhead than processes, this seems like a good option. As one thread is stuck waiting for an HTTP response, the CPU can take another thread to process, and so on. This would get us to our desired concurrent execution. But my question is how dos Python's threading know that it can switch some thread for another? Does it knows that some thread is currently on an I/O operation and that he can switch her for another one? Will this approach absolutely maximize CPU usage avoiding busy wait? Do I specifically has to give up control of a CPU inside a thread or is this automatically done in Python?
Recently, I also read about a concept called green-threads, using Eventlet on Python. From what I saw, they seem the perfect match for my project. The have little overhead and don't create OS threads like threading. But will we have the same problems as threading referring to CPU control? Does a green-thread needs to warn the CPU that it may take another one? I saw on some examples that Eventlet offers some built-in libraries like Urlopen, but no Requests.
The last option we considered was using Python's AsyncIo and async libraries such as Aiohttp. I have done some basic experimenting with AsyncIo and wasn't very pleased. But I can understand that most of it comes from the fact that Python is not a naturally asynchronous language. From what I saw, it would behave something like Eventlet.
So what do you think would be the best option here? What library would allow me to maximize performance on a single core machine? Avoiding busy waits as much as possible?
im writing a program and i need to have more than two process processes running simultaneously and they share few data. While trying to do that i reserched on Threads, Multiprocessing, Asyncio. Threads will only run a single thread at a time due to GIL,Multiprocessing dont share data fast, asyncio has no use here Now i'm quite jumbled up between these three.How to run simultaneously more than 2 proceeses?
Your best bet is probably the multiprocessing module. --> Process-based parallelism
Essentially, to create a multiprocess program the module just starts a new python process with whatever function you farm out to it on another core. In the past I have had CPU bound programs that benefited from parallel processing large amounts of data with similar functions, this is where I have found the most use cases. Other then case scenarios where I know I am CPU bound and run time matters, good program composition is usually a better and easier solution.
I'm slightly confused about whether multithreading works in Python or not.
I know there has been a lot of questions about this and I've read many of them, but I'm still confused. I know from my own experience and have seen others post their own answers and examples here on StackOverflow that multithreading is indeed possible in Python. So why is it that everyone keep saying that Python is locked by the GIL and that only one thread can run at a time? It clearly does work. Or is there some distinction I'm not getting here?
Many posters/respondents also keep mentioning that threading is limited because it does not make use of multiple cores. But I would say they are still useful because they do work simultaneously and thus get the combined workload done faster. I mean why would there even be a Python thread module otherwise?
Update:
Thanks for all the answers so far. The way I understand it is that multithreading will only run in parallel for some IO tasks, but can only run one at a time for CPU-bound multiple core tasks.
I'm not entirely sure what this means for me in practical terms, so I'll just give an example of the kind of task I'd like to multithread. For instance, let's say I want to loop through a very long list of strings and I want to do some basic string operations on each list item. If I split up the list, send each sublist to be processed by my loop/string code in a new thread, and send the results back in a queue, will these workloads run roughly at the same time? Most importantly will this theoretically speed up the time it takes to run the script?
Another example might be if I can render and save four different pictures using PIL in four different threads, and have this be faster than processing the pictures one by one after each other? I guess this speed-component is what I'm really wondering about rather than what the correct terminology is.
I also know about the multiprocessing module but my main interest right now is for small-to-medium task loads (10-30 secs) and so I think multithreading will be more appropriate because subprocesses can be slow to initiate.
The GIL does not prevent threading. All the GIL does is make sure only one thread is executing Python code at a time; control still switches between threads.
What the GIL prevents then, is making use of more than one CPU core or separate CPUs to run threads in parallel.
This only applies to Python code. C extensions can and do release the GIL to allow multiple threads of C code and one Python thread to run across multiple cores. This extends to I/O controlled by the kernel, such as select() calls for socket reads and writes, making Python handle network events reasonably efficiently in a multi-threaded multi-core setup.
What many server deployments then do, is run more than one Python process, to let the OS handle the scheduling between processes to utilize your CPU cores to the max. You can also use the multiprocessing library to handle parallel processing across multiple processes from one codebase and parent process, if that suits your use cases.
Note that the GIL is only applicable to the CPython implementation; Jython and IronPython use a different threading implementation (the native Java VM and .NET common runtime threads respectively).
To address your update directly: Any task that tries to get a speed boost from parallel execution, using pure Python code, will not see a speed-up as threaded Python code is locked to one thread executing at a time. If you mix in C extensions and I/O, however (such as PIL or numpy operations) and any C code can run in parallel with one active Python thread.
Python threading is great for creating a responsive GUI, or for handling multiple short web requests where I/O is the bottleneck more than the Python code. It is not suitable for parallelizing computationally intensive Python code, stick to the multiprocessing module for such tasks or delegate to a dedicated external library.
Yes. :)
You have the low level thread module and the higher level threading module. But it you simply want to use multicore machines, the multiprocessing module is the way to go.
Quote from the docs:
In CPython, due to the Global Interpreter Lock, only one thread can
execute Python code at once (even though certain performance-oriented
libraries might overcome this limitation). If you want your
application to make better use of the computational resources of
multi-core machines, you are advised to use multiprocessing. However,
threading is still an appropriate model if you want to run multiple
I/O-bound tasks simultaneously.
Threading is Allowed in Python, the only problem is that the GIL will make sure that just one thread is executed at a time (no parallelism).
So basically if you want to multi-thread the code to speed up calculation it won't speed it up as just one thread is executed at a time, but if you use it to interact with a database for example it will.
I feel for the poster because the answer is invariably "it depends what you want to do". However parallel speed up in python has always been terrible in my experience even for multiprocessing.
For example check this tutorial out (second to top result in google): https://www.machinelearningplus.com/python/parallel-processing-python/
I put timings around this code and increased the number of processes (2,4,8,16) for the pool map function and got the following bad timings:
serial 70.8921644706279
parallel 93.49704207479954 tasks 2
parallel 56.02441442012787 tasks 4
parallel 51.026168536394835 tasks 8
parallel 39.18044807203114 tasks 16
code:
# increase array size at the start
# my compute node has 40 CPUs so I've got plenty to spare here
arr = np.random.randint(0, 10, size=[2000000, 600])
.... more code ....
tasks = [2,4,8,16]
for task in tasks:
tic = time.perf_counter()
pool = mp.Pool(task)
results = pool.map(howmany_within_range_rowonly, [row for row in data])
pool.close()
toc = time.perf_counter()
time1 = toc - tic
print(f"parallel {time1} tasks {task}")
I'm slightly confused about whether multithreading works in Python or not.
I know there has been a lot of questions about this and I've read many of them, but I'm still confused. I know from my own experience and have seen others post their own answers and examples here on StackOverflow that multithreading is indeed possible in Python. So why is it that everyone keep saying that Python is locked by the GIL and that only one thread can run at a time? It clearly does work. Or is there some distinction I'm not getting here?
Many posters/respondents also keep mentioning that threading is limited because it does not make use of multiple cores. But I would say they are still useful because they do work simultaneously and thus get the combined workload done faster. I mean why would there even be a Python thread module otherwise?
Update:
Thanks for all the answers so far. The way I understand it is that multithreading will only run in parallel for some IO tasks, but can only run one at a time for CPU-bound multiple core tasks.
I'm not entirely sure what this means for me in practical terms, so I'll just give an example of the kind of task I'd like to multithread. For instance, let's say I want to loop through a very long list of strings and I want to do some basic string operations on each list item. If I split up the list, send each sublist to be processed by my loop/string code in a new thread, and send the results back in a queue, will these workloads run roughly at the same time? Most importantly will this theoretically speed up the time it takes to run the script?
Another example might be if I can render and save four different pictures using PIL in four different threads, and have this be faster than processing the pictures one by one after each other? I guess this speed-component is what I'm really wondering about rather than what the correct terminology is.
I also know about the multiprocessing module but my main interest right now is for small-to-medium task loads (10-30 secs) and so I think multithreading will be more appropriate because subprocesses can be slow to initiate.
The GIL does not prevent threading. All the GIL does is make sure only one thread is executing Python code at a time; control still switches between threads.
What the GIL prevents then, is making use of more than one CPU core or separate CPUs to run threads in parallel.
This only applies to Python code. C extensions can and do release the GIL to allow multiple threads of C code and one Python thread to run across multiple cores. This extends to I/O controlled by the kernel, such as select() calls for socket reads and writes, making Python handle network events reasonably efficiently in a multi-threaded multi-core setup.
What many server deployments then do, is run more than one Python process, to let the OS handle the scheduling between processes to utilize your CPU cores to the max. You can also use the multiprocessing library to handle parallel processing across multiple processes from one codebase and parent process, if that suits your use cases.
Note that the GIL is only applicable to the CPython implementation; Jython and IronPython use a different threading implementation (the native Java VM and .NET common runtime threads respectively).
To address your update directly: Any task that tries to get a speed boost from parallel execution, using pure Python code, will not see a speed-up as threaded Python code is locked to one thread executing at a time. If you mix in C extensions and I/O, however (such as PIL or numpy operations) and any C code can run in parallel with one active Python thread.
Python threading is great for creating a responsive GUI, or for handling multiple short web requests where I/O is the bottleneck more than the Python code. It is not suitable for parallelizing computationally intensive Python code, stick to the multiprocessing module for such tasks or delegate to a dedicated external library.
Yes. :)
You have the low level thread module and the higher level threading module. But it you simply want to use multicore machines, the multiprocessing module is the way to go.
Quote from the docs:
In CPython, due to the Global Interpreter Lock, only one thread can
execute Python code at once (even though certain performance-oriented
libraries might overcome this limitation). If you want your
application to make better use of the computational resources of
multi-core machines, you are advised to use multiprocessing. However,
threading is still an appropriate model if you want to run multiple
I/O-bound tasks simultaneously.
Threading is Allowed in Python, the only problem is that the GIL will make sure that just one thread is executed at a time (no parallelism).
So basically if you want to multi-thread the code to speed up calculation it won't speed it up as just one thread is executed at a time, but if you use it to interact with a database for example it will.
I feel for the poster because the answer is invariably "it depends what you want to do". However parallel speed up in python has always been terrible in my experience even for multiprocessing.
For example check this tutorial out (second to top result in google): https://www.machinelearningplus.com/python/parallel-processing-python/
I put timings around this code and increased the number of processes (2,4,8,16) for the pool map function and got the following bad timings:
serial 70.8921644706279
parallel 93.49704207479954 tasks 2
parallel 56.02441442012787 tasks 4
parallel 51.026168536394835 tasks 8
parallel 39.18044807203114 tasks 16
code:
# increase array size at the start
# my compute node has 40 CPUs so I've got plenty to spare here
arr = np.random.randint(0, 10, size=[2000000, 600])
.... more code ....
tasks = [2,4,8,16]
for task in tasks:
tic = time.perf_counter()
pool = mp.Pool(task)
results = pool.map(howmany_within_range_rowonly, [row for row in data])
pool.close()
toc = time.perf_counter()
time1 = toc - tic
print(f"parallel {time1} tasks {task}")
I have a python application that grabs a collection of data and for each piece of data in that collection it performs a task. The task takes some time to complete as there is a delay involved. Because of this delay, I don't want each piece of data to perform the task subsequently, I want them to all happen in parallel. Should I be using multiprocess? or threading for this operation?
I attempted to use threading but had some trouble, often some of the tasks would never actually fire.
If you are truly compute bound, using the multiprocessing module is probably the lightest weight solution (in terms of both memory consumption and implementation difficulty.)
If you are I/O bound, using the threading module will usually give you good results. Make sure that you use thread safe storage (like the Queue) to hand data to your threads. Or else hand them a single piece of data that is unique to them when they are spawned.
PyPy is focused on performance. It has a number of features that can help with compute-bound processing. They also have support for Software Transactional Memory, although that is not yet production quality. The promise is that you can use simpler parallel or concurrent mechanisms than multiprocessing (which has some awkward requirements.)
Stackless Python is also a nice idea. Stackless has portability issues as indicated above. Unladen Swallow was promising, but is now defunct. Pyston is another (unfinished) Python implementation focusing on speed. It is taking an approach different to PyPy, which may yield better (or just different) speedups.
Tasks runs like sequentially but you have the illusion that are run in parallel. Tasks are good when you use for file or connection I/O and because are lightweights.
Multiprocess with Pool may be the right solution for you because processes runs in parallel so are very good with intensive computing because each process run in one CPU (or core).
Setup multiprocess may be very easy:
from multiprocessing import Pool
def worker(input_item):
output = do_some_work()
return output
pool = Pool() # it make one process for each CPU (or core) of your PC. Use "Pool(4)" to force to use 4 processes, for example.
list_of_results = pool.map(worker, input_list) # Launch all automatically
For small collections of data, simply create subprocesses with subprocess.Popen.
Each subprocess can simply get it's piece of data from stdin or from command-line arguments, do it's processing, and simply write the result to an output file.
When the subprocesses have all finished (or timed out), you simply merge the output files.
Very simple.
You might consider looking into Stackless Python. If you have control over the function that takes a long time, you can just throw some stackless.schedule()s in there (saying yield to the next coroutine), or else you can set Stackless to preemptive multitasking.
In Stackless, you don't have threads, but tasklets or greenlets which are essentially very lightweight threads. It works great in the sense that there's a pretty good framework with very little setup to get multitasking going.
However, Stackless hinders portability because you have to replace a few of the standard Python libraries -- Stackless removes reliance on the C stack. It's very portable if the next user also has Stackless installed, but that will rarely be the case.
Using CPython's threading model will not give you any performance improvement, because the threads are not actually executed in parallel, due to the way garbage collection is handled. Multiprocess would allow parallel execution. Obviously in this case you have to have multiple cores available to farm out your parallel jobs to.
There is much more information available in this related question.
If you can easily partition and separate the data you have, it sounds like you should just do that partitioning externally, and feed them to several processes of your program. (i.e. several processes instead of threads)
IronPython has real multithreading, unlike CPython and it's GIL. So depending on what you're doing it may be worth looking at. But it sounds like your use case is better suited to the multiprocessing module.
To the guy who recommends stackless python, I'm not an expert on it, but it seems to me that he's talking about software "multithreading", which is actually not parallel at all (still runs in one physical thread, so cannot scale to multiple cores.) It's merely an alternative way to structure asynchronous (but still single-threaded, non-parallel) application.
You may want to look at Twisted. It is designed for asynchronous network tasks.