Develop Reference

Multiprocessing is not executing parallel in Python

I have edited the code , currently it is working fine . But thinks it is not executing parallely or dynamically . Can anyone please check on to it
Code :
def folderStatistic(t):
j, dir_name = t
row = []
for content in dir_name.split(","):
row.append(content)
print(row)
def get_directories():
import csv
with open('CONFIG.csv', 'r') as file:
reader = csv.reader(file,delimiter = '\t')
return [col for row in reader for col in row]
def folderstatsMain():
freeze_support()
start = time.time()
pool = Pool()
worker = partial(folderStatistic)
pool.map(worker, enumerate(get_directories()))
def datatobechecked():
try:
folderstatsMain()
except Exception as e:
# pass
print(e)
if __name__ == '__main__':
datatobechecked()
Config.CSV
C:\USERS, .CSV
C:\WINDOWS , .PDF
etc.
There may be around 200 folder paths in config.csv

welcome to StackOverflow and Python programming world!
Moving on to the question.
Inside the get_directories() function you open the file in with context, get the reader object and close the file immediately after the moment you leave the context so when the time comes to use the reader object the file is already closed.
I don't want to discourage you, but if you are very new to programming do not dive into parallel programing yet. Difficulty in handling multiple threads simultaneously grows exponentially with every thread you add (pools greatly simplify this process though). Processes are even worse as they don't share memory and can't communicate with each other easily.
My advice is, try to write it as a single-thread program first. If you have it working and still need to parallelize it, isolate a single function with input file path as a parameter that does all the work and then use thread/process pool on that function.
EDIT:
From what I can understand from your code, you get directory names from the CSV file and then for each "cell" in the file you run parallel folderStatistics. This part seems correct. The problem may lay in dir_name.split(","), notice that you pass individual "cells" to the folderStatistics not rows. What makes you think it's not running paralelly?.

There is a certain amount of overhead in creating a multiprocessing pool because creating processes is, unlike creating threads, a fairly costly operation. Then those submitted tasks, represented by each element of the iterable being passed to the map method, are gathered up in "chunks" and written to a multiprocessing queue of tasks that are read by the pool processes. This data has to move from one address space to another and that has a cost associated with it. Finally when your worker function, folderStatistic, returns its result (which is None in this case), that data has to be moved from one process's address space back to the main process's address space and that too has a cost associated with it.
All of those added costs become worthwhile when your worker function is sufficiently CPU-intensive such that these additional costs is small compared to the savings gained by having the tasks run in parallel. But your worker function's CPU requirements are so small as to reap any benefit from multiprocessing.
Here is a demo comparing single-processing time vs. multiprocessing times for invoking a worker function, fn, twice where the first time it only performs its internal loop 10 times (low CPU requirements) while the second time it performs its internal loop 1,000,000 times (higher CPU requirements). You can see that in the first case the multiprocessing version runs considerable slower (you can't even measure the time for the single processing run). But when we make fn more CPU-intensive, then multiprocessing achieves gains over the single-processing case.
from multiprocessing import Pool
from functools import partial
import time
def fn(iterations, x):
the_sum = x
for _ in range(iterations):
the_sum += x
return the_sum
# required for Windows:
if __name__ == '__main__':
for n_iterations in (10, 1_000_000):
# single processing time:
t1 = time.time()
for x in range(1, 20):
fn(n_iterations, x)
t2 = time.time()
# multiprocessing time:
worker = partial(fn, n_iterations)
t3 = time.time()
with Pool() as p:
results = p.map(worker, range(1, 20))
t4 = time.time()
print(f'#iterations = {n_iterations}, single processing time = {t2 - t1}, multiprocessing time = {t4 - t3}')
Prints:
#iterations = 10, single processing time = 0.0, multiprocessing time = 0.35399389266967773
#iterations = 1000000, single processing time = 1.182999849319458, multiprocessing time = 0.5530076026916504
But even with a pool size of 8, the running time is not reduced by a factor of 8 (it's more like a factor of 2) due to the fixed multiprocessing overhead. When I change the number of iterations for the second case to be 100,000,000 (even more CPU-intensive), we get ...
#iterations = 100000000, single processing time = 109.3077495098114, multiprocessing time = 27.202054023742676
... which is a reduction in running time by a factor of 4 (I have many other processes running in my computer, so there is competition for the CPU).

Using pool for multiprocessing in Python (Windows)

I have to do my study in a parallel way to run it much faster. I am new to multiprocessing library in python, and could not yet make it run successfully.
Here, I am investigating if each pair of (origin, target) remains at certain locations between various frames of my study. Several points:
It is one function, which I want to run faster (It is not several processes).
The process is performed subsequently; it means that each frame is compared with the previous one.
This code is a very simpler form of the original code. The code outputs a residece_list.
I am using Windows OS.
Can someone check the code (the multiprocessing section) and help me improve it to make it work. Thanks.
import numpy as np
from multiprocessing import Pool, freeze_support
def Main_Residence(total_frames, origin_list, target_list):
Previous_List = {}
residence_list = []
for frame in range(total_frames): #Each frame
Current_List = {} #Dict of pair and their residence for frames
for origin in range(origin_list):
for target in range(target_list):
Pair = (origin, target) #Eahc pair
if Pair in Current_List.keys(): #If already considered, continue
continue
else:
if origin == target:
if (Pair in Previous_List.keys()): #If remained from the previous frame, add residence
print "Origin_Target remained: ", Pair
Current_List[Pair] = (Previous_List[Pair] + 1)
else: #If new, add it to the current
Current_List[Pair] = 1
for pair in Previous_List.keys(): #Add those that exited from residence to the list
if pair not in Current_List.keys():
residence_list.append(Previous_List[pair])
Previous_List = Current_List
return residence_list
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = Pool(processes=5)
Residence_List = pool.apply_async(Main_Residence, args=(20, 50, 50))
print Residence_List.get(timeout=1)
pool.close()
pool.join()
freeze_support()
Residence_List = np.array(Residence_List) * 5

Multiprocessing does not make sense in the context you are presenting here.
You are creating five subprocesses (and three threads belonging to the pool, managing workers, tasks and results) to execute one function once. All of this is coming at a cost, both in system resources and execution time, while four of your worker processes don't do anything at all. Multiprocessing does not speed up the execution of a function. The code in your specific example will always be slower than plainly executing Main_Residence(20, 50, 50) in the main process.
For multiprocessing to make sense in such a context, your work at hand would need to be broken down to a set of homogenous tasks that can be processed in parallel with their results potentially being merged later.
As an example (not necessarily a good one), if you want to calculate the largest prime factors for a sequence of numbers, you can delegate the task of calculating that factor for any specific number to a worker in a pool. Several workers would then do these individual calculations in parallel:
def largest_prime_factor(n):
p = n
i = 2
while i * i <= n:
if n % i:
i += 1
else:
n //= i
return p, n
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = Pool(processes=3)
start = datetime.now()
# this delegates half a million individual tasks to the pool, i.e.
# largest_prime_factor(0), largest_prime_factor(1), ..., largest_prime_factor(499999)
pool.map(largest_prime_factor, range(500000))
pool.close()
pool.join()
print "pool elapsed", datetime.now() - start
start = datetime.now()
# same work just in the main process
[largest_prime_factor(i) for i in range(500000)]
print "single elapsed", datetime.now() - start
Output:
pool elapsed 0:00:04.664000
single elapsed 0:00:08.939000
(the largest_prime_factor function is taken from #Stefan in this answer)
As you can see, the pool is only roughly twice as fast as single process execution of the same amount of work, all while running in three processes in parallel. That's due to the overhead introduced by multiprocessing/the pool.
So, you stated that the code in your example has been simplified. You'll have to analyse your original code to see if it can be broken down to homogenous tasks that can be passed down to your pool for processing. If that is possible, using multiprocessing might help you speed up your program. If not, multiprocessing will likely cost you time, rather than save it.
Edit:
Since you asked for suggestions on the code. I can hardly say anything about your function. You said yourself that it is just a simplified example to provide an MCVE (much appreciated by the way! Most people don't take the time to strip down their code to its bare minimum). Requests for a code review are anyway better suited over at Codereview.
Play around a bit with the available methods of task delegation. In my prime factor example, using apply_async came with a massive penalty. Execution time increased ninefold, compared to using map. But my example is using just a simple iterable, yours needs three arguments per task. This could be a case for starmap, but that is only available as of Python 3.3.Anyway, the structure/nature of your task data basically determines the correct method to use.
I did some q&d testing with multiprocessing your example function.
The input was defined like this:
inp = [(20, 50, 50)] * 5000 # that makes 5000 tasks against your Main_Residence
I ran that in Python 3.6 in three subprocesses with your function unaltered, except for the removal of the print statment (I/O is costly). I used, starmap, apply, starmap_async and apply_async and also iterated through the results each time to account for the blocking get() on the async results.
Here's the output:
starmap elapsed 0:01:14.506600
apply elapsed 0:02:11.290600
starmap async elapsed 0:01:27.718800
apply async elapsed 0:01:12.571200
# btw: 5k calls to Main_Residence in the main process looks as bad
# as using apply for delegation
single elapsed 0:02:12.476800
As you can see, the execution times differ, although all four methods do the same amount of work; the apply_async you picked appears to be the fastest method.
Coding Style. Your code looks quite ... unconventional :) You use Capitalized_Words_With_Underscore for your names (both, function and variable names), that's pretty much a no-no in Python. Also, assigning the name Previous_List to a dictionary is ... questionable. Have a look at PEP 8, especially the section Naming Conventions to see the commonly accepted coding style for Python.
Judging by the way your print looks, you are still using Python 2. I know that in corporate or institutional environments that's sometimes all you have available. Still, keep in mind that the clock for Python 2 is ticking

Multiprocessing -- Thread Pool Memory Leak?

I am observing memory usage that I cannot explain to myself. Below I provide a stripped down version of my actual code that still exhibits this behavior. The code is intended to accomplish the following:
Read a text file in chunks of 1000 lines. Each line is a sentence. Split these 1000 sentences into 4 generators. Pass these generators to a thread pool and run feature extraction in parallel on 250 sentences.
In my actual code I accumulate features and labels from all sentences of the entire file.
Now here comes the weird thing: Memory gets allocated but not freed again even when not accumulating these values! And it has something to do with the thread pool I think. The amount of memory taken in total is dependent on how many features are extracted for any given word. I simulate this here with range(100). Have a look:
from sys import argv
from itertools import chain, islice
from multiprocessing import Pool
from math import ceil
# dummyfied feature extraction function
# the lengt of the range determines howmuch mamory is used up in total,
# eventhough the objects are never stored
def features_from_sentence(sentence):
return [{'some feature' 'some value'} for i in range(100)], ['some label' for i in range(100)]
# split iterable into generator of generators of length `size`
def chunks(iterable, size=10):
iterator = iter(iterable)
for first in iterator:
yield chain([first], islice(iterator, size - 1))
def features_from_sentence_meta(l):
return list(map (features_from_sentence, l))
def make_X_and_Y_sets(sentences, i):
print(f'start: {i}')
pool = Pool()
# split sentences into a generator of 4 generators
sentence_chunks = chunks(sentences, ceil(50000/4))
# results is a list containing the lists of pairs of X and Y of all chunks
results = map(lambda x : x[0], pool.map(features_from_sentence_meta, sentence_chunks))
X, Y = zip(*results)
print(f'end: {i}')
return X, Y
# reads file in chunks of `lines_per_chunk` lines
def line_chunks(textfile, lines_per_chunk=1000):
chunk = []
i = 0
with open(textfile, 'r') as textfile:
for line in textfile:
if not line.split(): continue
i+=1
chunk.append(line.strip())
if i == lines_per_chunk:
yield chunk
i = 0
chunk = []
yield chunk
textfile = argv[1]
for i, line_chunk in enumerate(line_chunks(textfile)):
# stop processing file after 10 chunks to demonstrate
# that memory stays occupied (check your system monitor)
if i == 10:
while True:
pass
X_chunk, Y_chunk = make_X_and_Y_sets(line_chunk, i)
The file I am using to debug this has 50000 nonempty lines, which is why I use the hardcoded 50000 at one place. If you want to use the same file, he is a link for your convenience:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v7nxb7vrrjim349/de_wiki_50000_lines?dl=0
Now when you run this script and open your system monitor you will observe that memory gets used up and the usage keeps going until the 10th chunk, where I artificially go into an endless loop to demonstrate that the memory stays in use, even though I never store anything.
Can you explain to me why this happens? I seem to be missing something about how multiprocessing pools are supposed to be used.

First, let's clear up some misunderstandings—although, as it turns out, this wasn't actually the right avenue to explore in the first place.
When you allocate memory in Python, of course it has to go get that memory from the OS.
When you release memory, however, it rarely gets returned to the OS, until you finally exit. Instead, it goes into a "free list"—or, actually, multiple levels of free lists for different purposes. This means that the next time you need memory, Python already has it lying around, and can find it immediately, without needing to talk to the OS to allocate more. This usually makes memory-intensive programs much faster.
But this also means that—especially on modern 64-bit operating systems—trying to understand whether you really do have any memory pressure issues by looking at your Activity Monitor/Task Manager/etc. is next to useless.
The tracemalloc module in the standard library provides low-level tools to see what actually is going on with your memory usage. At a higher level, you can use something like memory_profiler, which (if you enable tracemalloc support—this is important) can put that information together with OS-level information from sources like psutil to figure out where things are going.
However, if you aren't seeing any actual problems—your system isn't going into swap hell, you aren't getting any MemoryError exceptions, your performance isn't hitting some weird cliff where it scales linearly up to N and then suddenly goes all to hell at N+1, etc.—you usually don't need to bother with any of this in the first place.
If you do discover a problem, then, fortunately, you're already half-way to solving it. As I mentioned at the top, most memory that you allocated doesn't get returned to the OS until you finally exit. But if all of your memory usage is happening in child processes, and those child processes have no state, you can make them exit and restart whenever you want.
Of course there's a performance cost to doing so—process teardown and startup time, and page maps and caches that have to start over, and asking the OS to allocate the memory again, and so on. And there's also a complexity cost—you can't just run a pool and let it do its thing; you have to get involved in its thing and make it recycle processes for you.
There's no builtin support in the multiprocessing.Pool class for doing this.
You can, of course, build your own Pool. If you want to get fancy, you can look at the source to multiprocessing and do what it does. Or you can build a trivial pool out of a list of Process objects and a pair of Queues. Or you can just directly use Process objects without the abstraction of a pool.
Another reason you can have memory problems is that your individual processes are fine, but you just have too many of them.
And, in fact, that seems to be the case here.
You create a Pool of 4 workers in this function:
def make_X_and_Y_sets(sentences, i):
print(f'start: {i}')
pool = Pool()
# ...
… and you call this function for every chunk:
for i, line_chunk in enumerate(line_chunks(textfile)):
# ...
X_chunk, Y_chunk = make_X_and_Y_sets(line_chunk, i)
So, you end up with 4 new processes for every chunk. Even if each one has pretty low memory usage, having hundreds of them at once is going to add up.
Not to mention that you're probably severely hurting your time performance by having hundreds of processes competing over 4 cores, so you waste time in context switching and OS scheduling instead of doing real work.
As you pointed out in a comment, the fix for this is trivial: just make a single global pool instead of a new one for each call.
Sorry for getting all Columbo here, but… just one more thing… This code runs at the top level of your module:
for i, line_chunk in enumerate(line_chunks(textfile)):
# ...
X_chunk, Y_chunk = make_X_and_Y_sets(line_chunk, i)
… and that's the code that tries to spin up the pool and all the child tasks. But each child process in that pool needs to import this module, which means they're all going to end up running the same code, and spinning up another pool and a whole extra set of child tasks.
You're presumably running this on Linux or macOS, where the default startmethod is fork, which means multiprocessing can avoid this import, so you don't have a problem. But with the other startmethods, this code would basically be a forkbomb that eats up all of your system resources. And that includes spawn, which is the default startmethod on Windows. So, if there's ever any chance anyone might run this code on Windows, you should put all of that top-level code in a if __name__ == '__main__': guard.

Why is reading multiple files at the same time slower than reading sequentially?

I am trying to parse many files found in a directory, however using multiprocessing slows my program.
# Calling my parsing function from Client.
L = getParsedFiles('/home/tony/Lab/slicedFiles') <--- 1000 .txt files found here.
combined ~100MB
Following this example from python documentation:
from multiprocessing import Pool
def f(x):
return x*x
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = Pool(5)
print(p.map(f, [1, 2, 3]))
I've written this piece of code:
from multiprocessing import Pool
from api.ttypes import *
import gc
import os
def _parse(pathToFile):
myList = []
with open(pathToFile) as f:
for line in f:
s = line.split()
x, y = [int(v) for v in s]
obj = CoresetPoint(x, y)
gc.disable()
myList.append(obj)
gc.enable()
return Points(myList)
def getParsedFiles(pathToFile):
myList = []
p = Pool(2)
for filename in os.listdir(pathToFile):
if filename.endswith(".txt"):
myList.append(filename)
return p.map(_pars, , myList)
I followed the example, put all the names of the files that end with a .txt in a list, then created Pools, and mapped them to my function. Then I want to return a list of objects. Each object holds the parsed data of a file. However it amazes me that I got the following results:
#Pool 32 ---> ~162(s)
#Pool 16 ---> ~150(s)
#Pool 12 ---> ~142(s)
#Pool 2 ---> ~130(s)
Graph:
Machine specification:
62.8 GiB RAM
Intel® Core™ i7-6850K CPU # 3.60GHz × 12
What am I missing here ?
Thanks in advance!

Looks like you're I/O bound:
In computer science, I/O bound refers to a condition in which the time it takes to complete a computation is determined principally by the period spent waiting for input/output operations to be completed. This is the opposite of a task being CPU bound. This circumstance arises when the rate at which data is requested is slower than the rate it is consumed or, in other words, more time is spent requesting data than processing it.
You probably need to have your main thread do the reading and add the data to the pool when a subprocess becomes available. This will be different to using map.
As you are processing a line at a time, and the inputs are split, you can use fileinput to iterate over lines of multiple files, and map to a function processing lines instead of files:
Passing one line at a time might be too slow, so we can ask map to pass chunks, and can adjust until we find a sweet-spot. Our function parses chunks of lines:
def _parse_coreset_points(lines):
return Points([_parse_coreset_point(line) for line in lines])
def _parse_coreset_point(line):
s = line.split()
x, y = [int(v) for v in s]
return CoresetPoint(x, y)
And our main function:
import fileinput
def getParsedFiles(directory):
pool = Pool(2)
txts = [filename for filename in os.listdir(directory):
if filename.endswith(".txt")]
return pool.imap(_parse_coreset_points, fileinput.input(txts), chunksize=100)

In general it is never a good idea to read from the same physical (spinning) hard disk from different threads simultaneously, because every switch causes an extra delay of around 10ms to position the read head of the hard disk (would be different on SSD).
As #peter-wood already said, it is better to have one thread reading in the data, and have other threads processing that data.
Also, to really test the difference, I think you should do the test with some bigger files. For example: current hard disks should be able to read around 100MB/sec. So reading the data of a 100kB file in one go would take 1ms, while positioning the read head to the beginning of that file would take 10ms.
On the other hand, looking at your numbers (assuming those are for a single loop) it is hard to believe that being I/O bound is the only problem here. Total data is 100MB, which should take 1 second to read from disk plus some overhead, but your program takes 130 seconds. I don't know if that number is with the files cold on disk, or an average of multiple tests where the data is already cached by the OS (with 62 GB or RAM all that data should be cached the second time) - it would be interesting to see both numbers.
So there has to be something else. Let's take a closer look at your loop:
for line in f:
s = line.split()
x, y = [int(v) for v in s]
obj = CoresetPoint(x, y)
gc.disable()
myList.append(obj)
gc.enable()
While I don't know Python, my guess would be that the gc calls are the problem here. They are called for every line read from disk. I don't know how expensive those calls are (or what if gc.enable() triggers a garbage collection for example) and why they would be needed around append(obj) only, but there might be other problems because this is multithreading:
Assuming the gc object is global (i.e. not thread local) you could have something like this:
thread 1 : gc.disable()
# switch to thread 2
thread 2 : gc.disable()
thread 2 : myList.append(obj)
thread 2 : gc.enable()
# gc now enabled!
# switch back to thread 1 (or one of the other threads)
thread 1 : myList.append(obj)
thread 1 : gc.enable()
And if the number of threads <= number of cores, there wouldn't even be any switching, they would all be calling this at the same time.
Also, if the gc object is thread safe (it would be worse if it isn't) it would have to do some locking in order to safely alter it's internal state, which would force all other threads to wait.
For example, gc.disable() would look something like this:
def disable()
lock() # all other threads are blocked for gc calls now
alter internal data
unlock()
And because gc.disable() and gc.enable() are called in a tight loop, this will hurt performance when using multiple threads.
So it would be better to remove those calls, or place them at the beginning and end of your program if they are really needed (or only disable gc at the beginning, no need to do gc right before quitting the program).
Depending on the way Python copies or moves objects, it might also be slightly better to use myList.append(CoresetPoint(x, y)).
So it would be interesting to test the same on one 100MB file with one thread and without the gc calls.
If the processing takes longer than the reading (i.e. not I/O bound), use one thread to read the data in a buffer (should take 1 or 2 seconds on one 100MB file if not already cached), and multiple threads to process the data (but still without those gc calls in that tight loop).
You don't have to split the data into multiple files in order to be able to use threads. Just let them process different parts of the same file (even with the 14GB file).

A copy-paste snippet, for people who come from Google and don't like reading
Example is for json reading, just replace __single_json_loader with another file type to work with that.
from multiprocessing import Pool
from typing import Callable, Any, Iterable
import os
import json
def parallel_file_read(existing_file_paths: Iterable[str], map_lambda: Callable[[str], Any]):
result = {p: None for p in existing_file_paths}
pool = Pool()
for i, (temp_result, path) in enumerate(zip(pool.imap(map_lambda, existing_file_paths), result.keys())):
result[path] = temp_result
pool.close()
pool.join()
return result
def __single_json_loader(f_path: str):
with open(f_path, "r") as f:
return json.load(f)
def parallel_json_read(existing_file_paths: Iterable[str]):
combined_result = parallel_file_read(existing_file_paths, __single_json_loader)
return combined_result
And usage
if __name__ == "__main__":
def main():
directory_path = r"/path/to/my/file/directory"
assert os.path.isdir(directory_path)
d: os.DirEntry
all_files_names = [f for f in os.listdir(directory_path)]
all_files_paths = [os.path.join(directory_path, f_name) for f_name in all_files_names]
assert(all(os.path.isfile(p) for p in all_files_paths))
combined_result = parallel_json_read(all_files_paths)
main()
Very straight forward to replace a json reader with any other reader, and you're done.

Python multithreading without a queue working with large data sets

I am running through a csv file of about 800k rows. I need a threading solution that runs through each row and spawns 32 threads at a time into a worker. I want to do this without a queue. It looks like current python threading solution with a queue is eating up alot of memory.
Basically want to read a csv file row and put into a worker thread. And only want 32 threads running at a time.
This is current script. It appears that it is reading the entire csv file into queue and doing a queue.join(). Is it correct that it is loading the entire csv into a queue then spawning the threads?
queue=Queue.Queue()
def worker():
while True:
task=queue.get()
try:
subprocess.call(['php {docRoot}/cli.php -u "api/email/ses" -r "{task}"'.format(
docRoot=docRoot,
task=task
)],shell=True)
except:
pass
with lock:
stats['done']+=1
if int(time.time())!=stats.get('now'):
stats.update(
now=int(time.time()),
percent=(stats.get('done')/stats.get('total'))*100,
ps=(stats.get('done')/(time.time()-stats.get('start')))
)
print("\r {percent:.1f}% [{progress:24}] {persec:.3f}/s ({done}/{total}) ETA {eta:<12}".format(
percent=stats.get('percent'),
progress=('='*int((23*stats.get('percent'))/100))+'>',
persec=stats.get('ps'),
done=int(stats.get('done')),
total=stats.get('total'),
eta=snippets.duration.time(int((stats.get('total')-stats.get('done'))/stats.get('ps')))
),end='')
queue.task_done()
for i in range(32):
workers=threading.Thread(target=worker)
workers.daemon=True
workers.start()
try:
with open(csvFile,'rb') as fh:
try:
dialect=csv.Sniffer().sniff(fh.readline(),[',',';'])
fh.seek(0)
reader=csv.reader(fh,dialect)
headers=reader.next()
except csv.Error as e:
print("\rERROR[CSV] {error}\n".format(error=e))
else:
while True:
try:
data=reader.next()
except csv.Error as e:
print("\rERROR[CSV] - Line {line}: {error}\n".format( line=reader.line_num, error=e))
except StopIteration:
break
else:
stats['total']+=1
queue.put(urllib.urlencode(dict(zip(headers,data)+dict(campaign=row.get('Campaign')).items())))
queue.join()

32 threads is probably overkill unless you have some humungous hardware available.
The rule of thumb for optimum number of threads or processes is: (no. of cores * 2) - 1
which comes to either 7 or 15 on most hardware.
The simplest way would be to start 7 threads passing each thread an "offset" as a parameter.
i.e. a number from 0 to 7.
Each thread would then skip rows until it reached the "offset" number and process that row. Having processed the row it can skip 6 rows and process the 7th -- repeat until no more rows.
This setup works for threads and multiple processes and is very efficient in I/O on most machines as all the threads should be reading roughly the same part of the file at any given time.
I should add that this method is particularly good for python as each thread is more or less independent once started and avoids the dreaded python global lock common to other methods.

I don't understand why you want to spawn 32 threads per row. However data processing in parallel in a fairly common embarassingly paralell thing to do and easily achievable with Python's multiprocessing library.
Example:
from multiprocessing import Pool
def job(args):
# do some work
inputs = [...] # define your inputs
Pool().map(job, inputs)
I leave it up to you to fill in the blanks to meet your specific requirements.
See: https://bitbucket.org/ccaih/ccav/src/tip/bin/ for many examples of this pattenr.

Other answers have explained how to use Pool without having to manage queues (it manages them for you) and that you do not want to set the number of processes to 32, but to your CPU count - 1. I would add two things. First, you may want to look at the pandas package, which can easily import your csv file into Python. The second is that the examples of using Pool in the other answers only pass it a function that takes a single argument. Unfortunately, you can only pass Pool a single object with all the inputs for your function, which makes it difficult to use functions that take multiple arguments. Here is code that allows you to call a previously defined function with multiple arguments using pool:
import multiprocessing
from multiprocessing import Pool
def multiplyxy(x,y):
return x*y
def funkytuple(t):
"""
Breaks a tuple into a function to be called and a tuple
of arguments for that function. Changes that new tuple into
a series of arguments and passes those arguments to the
function.
"""
f = t[0]
t = t[1]
return f(*t)
def processparallel(func, arglist):
"""
Takes a function and a list of arguments for that function
and proccesses in parallel.
"""
parallelarglist = []
for entry in arglist:
parallelarglist.append((func, tuple(entry)))
cpu_count = int(multiprocessing.cpu_count() - 1)
pool = Pool(processes = cpu_count)
database = pool.map(funkytuple, parallelarglist)
pool.close()
return database
#Necessary on Windows
if __name__ == '__main__':
x = [23, 23, 42, 3254, 32]
y = [324, 234, 12, 425, 13]
i = 0
arglist = []
while i < len(x):
arglist.append([x[i],y[i]])
i += 1
database = processparallel(multiplyxy, arglist)
print(database)

Your question is pretty unclear. Have you tried initializing your Queue to have a maximum size of, say, 64?
myq = Queue.Queue(maxsize=64)
Then a producer (one or more) trying to .put() new items on myq will block until consumers reduce the queue size to less than 64. This will correspondingly limit the amount of memory consumed by the queue. By default, queues are unbounded: if the producer(s) add items faster than consumers take them off, the queue can grow to consume all the RAM you have.
EDIT
This is current script. It appears that it is reading the
entire csv file into queue and doing a queue.join(). Is
it correct that it is loading the entire csv into a queue
then spawning the threads?
The indentation is messed up in your post, so have to guess some, but:
The code obviously starts 32 threads before it opens the CSV file.
You didn't show the code that creates the queue. As already explained above, if it's a Queue.Queue, by default it's unbounded, and can grow to any size if your main loop puts items on it faster than your threads remove items from it. Since you haven't said anything about what worker() does (or shown its code), we don't have enough information to guess whether that's the case. But that memory use is out of hand suggests that's the case.
And, as also explained, you can stop that easily by specifying a maximum size when you create the queue.
To get better answers, supply better info ;-)
ANOTHER EDIT
Well, the indentation is still messed up in spots, but it's better. Have you tried any suggestions? Looks like your worker threads each spawn a new process, so they'll take very much longer than it takes just to read another line from the csv file. So it's indeed very likely that you put items on the queue far faster than they're taken off. So, for the umpteenth time ;-), TRY initializing the queue with (say) maxsize=64. Then reveal what happens.
BTW, the bare except: clause in worker() is a Really Bad Idea. If anything goes wrong, you'll never know. If you have to ignore every possible exception (including even KeyboardInterrupt and SystemExit), at least log the exception info.
And note what #JamesAnderson said: unless you have extraordinary hardware resources, trying to run 32 processes at a time is almost certainly slower than running a number of processes that's no more than twice the number of available cores. Then again, that depends too a lot on what your PHP program does. If, for example, the PHP program uses disk I/O heavily, any multiprocessing may be slower than none.