Develop Reference

Will this cause a deadlock or a bad pattern?

Will the following way of using a thread pool cause a deadlock? Or is such a pattern not preferred? If so, what is the alternative.
Passing pool to a function that is run in a thread, which in turn invokes a function that is run the same pool.
from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor
from time import sleep
def bar():
sleep(2)
return 2
def foo(pool):
sleep(2)
my_list = [pool.submit(bar) for i in range(4)]
return [i.result() for i in my_list]
pool = ThreadPoolExecutor(10)
my_list = [pool.submit(foo, pool) for i in range(2)]
for i in my_list:
print(i.result())

This would be a safe way to spawn a thread from within a thread that itself was initiated by ThreadPoolExecutor. This may not be necessary if ThreadPoolExecutor itself is thread-safe. The output shows how, in this case, there would be 10 concurrent threads.
from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor
from time import sleep
BAR_THREADS = 4
FOO_THREADS = 2
def bar(_):
print('Running bar')
sleep(1)
def foo(_):
print('Running foo')
with ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=BAR_THREADS) as executor:
executor.map(bar, range(BAR_THREADS))
with ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=FOO_THREADS) as executor:
executor.map(foo, range(FOO_THREADS))
print('Done')
Output:
Running foo
Running foo
Running bar
Running bar
Running bar
Running bar
Running bar
Running bar
Running bar
Running bar
Done

Will the following way of using a thread pool cause a deadlock? ... If so, what is the alternative?
One alternative would be to use a thread pool that does not have a hard limit on the number of workers. Unfortunately, the concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor class is not so sophisticated. You either would have to write your own, or else find one provided by a third party. (I'm not a big-time Python programmer, so I don't know of one off-hand.)
A naive alternative thread-pool might create a new worker any time submit() was called and all of the existing workers were busy. On the other hand, that could make it easy for you to run the program out of memory by creating too many threads. A slightly more sophisticated thread pool might also kill off a worker if too many other workers were idle at the moment when the worker completed its task.
More sophisticated strategies are possible, but you might have to think more deeply about the needs and patterns-of-use of the application before writing the code.

Python multiprocessing map using with statement does not stop

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.

Stopping processes in ThreadPool in Python

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()

What happens when I multiprocessing.pool.apply_async more times than I have processors

I have the following setup:
results = [f(args) for _ in range(10**3)]
But, f(args) takes a long time to compute. So I'd like to throw multiprocessing at it. I would like to do so by doing:
pool = mp.pool(mp.cpu_count() -1) # mp.cpu_count() -> 8
results = [pool.apply_async(f, args) for _ in range(10**3)]
Clearly, I don't have 1000 processors on my computer, so my concern:
Does the above call result in 1000 processes simultaneously competing for CPU time or 7 processes running simultaneously, iteratively computing the next f(args) when the previous call finishes?
I suppose I could do something like pool.async_map(f, (args for _ in range(10**3))) to get the same results, but the purpose of this post is to understand the behavior of pool.apply_async

You'll never have more processes running than there are workers in your pool (in your case mp.cpu_count() - 1. If you call apply_async and all the workers are busy, the task will be queued and executed as soon as a worker frees up. You can see this with a simple test program:
#!/usr/bin/python
import time
import multiprocessing as mp
def worker(chunk):
print('working')
time.sleep(10)
return
def main():
pool = mp.Pool(2) # Only two workers
for n in range(0, 8):
pool.apply_async(worker, (n,))
print("called it")
pool.close()
pool.join()
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
The output is like this:
called it
called it
called it
called it
called it
called it
called it
called it
working
working
<delay>
working
working
<delay>
working
working
<delay>
working
working

The number of worker processes is wholly controlled by the argument to mp.pool(). So if mp.cpu_count() returns 8 on your box, 7 worker processes will be created.
All pool methods (apply_async() among them) then use no more than that many worker processes. Under the covers, arguments are pickled in the main program and sent over an inter-process pipe to worker processes. This hidden machinery effectively creates a work queue, off of which the fixed number of worker processes pull descriptions of work to do (function name + arguments).
Other than that, it's all just magic ;-)

Asynchronous multiprocessing with a worker pool in Python: how to keep going after timeout?

I would like to run a number of jobs using a pool of processes and apply a given timeout after which a job should be killed and replaced by another working on the next task.
I have tried to use the multiprocessing module which offers a method to run of pool of workers asynchronously (e.g. using map_async), but there I can only set a "global" timeout after which all processes would be killed.
Is it possible to have an individual timeout after which only a single process that takes too long is killed and a new worker is added to the pool again instead (processing the next task and skipping the one that timed out)?
Here's a simple example to illustrate my problem:
def Check(n):
import time
if n % 2 == 0: # select some (arbitrary) subset of processes
print "%d timeout" % n
while 1:
# loop forever to simulate some process getting stuck
pass
print "%d done" % n
return 0
from multiprocessing import Pool
pool = Pool(processes=4)
result = pool.map_async(Check, range(10))
print result.get(timeout=1)
After the timeout all workers are killed and the program exits. I would like instead that it continues with the next subtask. Do I have to implement this behavior myself or are there existing solutions?
Update
It is possible to kill the hanging workers and they are automatically replaced. So I came up with this code:
jobs = pool.map_async(Check, range(10))
while 1:
try:
print "Waiting for result"
result = jobs.get(timeout=1)
break # all clear
except multiprocessing.TimeoutError:
# kill all processes
for c in multiprocessing.active_children():
c.terminate()
print result
The problem now is that the loop never exits; even after all tasks have been processed, calling get yields a timeout exception.

The pebble Pool module has been built for solving these types of issue. It supports timeout on given tasks allowing to detect them and easily recover.
from pebble import ProcessPool
from concurrent.futures import TimeoutError
with ProcessPool() as pool:
future = pool.schedule(function, args=[1,2], timeout=5)
try:
result = future.result()
except TimeoutError:
print "Function took longer than %d seconds" % error.args[1]
For your specific example:
from pebble import ProcessPool
from concurrent.futures import TimeoutError
results = []
with ProcessPool(max_workers=4) as pool:
future = pool.map(Check, range(10), timeout=5)
iterator = future.result()
# iterate over all results, if a computation timed out
# print it and continue to the next result
while True:
try:
result = next(iterator)
results.append(result)
except StopIteration:
break
except TimeoutError as error:
print "function took longer than %d seconds" % error.args[1]
print results

Currently the Python does not provide native means to the control execution time of each distinct task in the pool outside the worker itself.
So the easy way is to use wait_procs in the psutil module and implement the tasks as subprocesses.
If nonstandard libraries are not desirable, then you have to implement own Pool on base of subprocess module having the working cycle in the main process, poll() - ing the execution of each worker and performing required actions.
As for the updated problem, the pool becomes corrupted if you directly terminate one of the workers (it is the bug in the interpreter implementation, because such behavior should not be allowed): the worker is recreated, but the task is lost and the pool becomes nonjoinable.
You have to terminate all the pool and then recreate it again for another tasks:
from multiprocessing import Pool
while True:
pool = Pool(processes=4)
jobs = pool.map_async(Check, range(10))
print "Waiting for result"
try:
result = jobs.get(timeout=1)
break # all clear
except multiprocessing.TimeoutError:
# kill all processes
pool.terminate()
pool.join()
print result
UPDATE
Pebble is an excellent and handy library, which solves the issue. Pebble is designed for the asynchronous execution of Python functions, where is PyExPool is designed for the asynchronous execution of modules and external executables, though both can be used interchangeably.
One more aspect is when 3dparty dependencies are not desirable, then PyExPool can be a good choice, which is a single-file lightweight implementation of Multi-process Execution Pool with per-Job and global timeouts, opportunity to group Jobs into Tasks and other features.
PyExPool can be embedded into your sources and customized, having permissive Apache 2.0 license and production quality, being used in the core of one high-loaded scientific benchmarking framework.

Try the construction where each process is being joined with a timeout on a separate thread. So the main program never gets stuck and as well the processes which if gets stuck, would be killed due to timeout. This technique is a combination of threading and multiprocessing modules.
Here is my way to maintain the minimum x number of threads in the memory. Its an combination of threading and multiprocessing modules. It may be unusual to other techniques like respected fellow members have explained above BUT may be worth considerable. For the sake of explanation, I am taking a scenario of crawling a minimum of 5 websites at a time.
so here it is:-
#importing dependencies.
from multiprocessing import Process
from threading import Thread
import threading
# Crawler function
def crawler(domain):
# define crawler technique here.
output.write(scrapeddata + "\n")
pass
Next is threadController function. This function will control the flow of threads to the main memory. It will keep activating the threads to maintain the threadNum "minimum" limit ie. 5. Also it won't exit until, all Active threads(acitveCount) are finished up.
It will maintain a minimum of threadNum(5) startProcess function threads (these threads will eventually start the Processes from the processList while joining them with a time out of 60 seconds). After staring threadController, there would be 2 threads which are not included in the above limit of 5 ie. the Main thread and the threadController thread itself. thats why threading.activeCount() != 2 has been used.
def threadController():
print "Thread count before child thread starts is:-", threading.activeCount(), len(processList)
# staring first thread. This will make the activeCount=3
Thread(target = startProcess).start()
# loop while thread List is not empty OR active threads have not finished up.
while len(processList) != 0 or threading.activeCount() != 2:
if (threading.activeCount() < (threadNum + 2) and # if count of active threads are less than the Minimum AND
len(processList) != 0): # processList is not empty
Thread(target = startProcess).start() # This line would start startThreads function as a seperate thread **
startProcess function, as a separate thread, would start Processes from the processlist. The purpose of this function (**started as a different thread) is that It would become a parent thread for Processes. So when It will join them with a timeout of 60 seconds, this would stop the startProcess thread to move ahead but this won't stop threadController to perform. So this way, threadController will work as required.
def startProcess():
pr = processList.pop(0)
pr.start()
pr.join(60.00) # joining the thread with time out of 60 seconds as a float.
if __name__ == '__main__':
# a file holding a list of domains
domains = open("Domains.txt", "r").read().split("\n")
output = open("test.txt", "a")
processList = [] # thread list
threadNum = 5 # number of thread initiated processes to be run at one time
# making process List
for r in range(0, len(domains), 1):
domain = domains[r].strip()
p = Process(target = crawler, args = (domain,))
processList.append(p) # making a list of performer threads.
# starting the threadController as a seperate thread.
mt = Thread(target = threadController)
mt.start()
mt.join() # won't let go next until threadController thread finishes.
output.close()
print "Done"
Besides maintaining a minimum number of threads in the memory, my aim was to also have something which could avoid stuck threads or processes in the memory. I did this using the time out function. My apologies for any typing mistake.
I hope this construction would help anyone in this world.
Regards,
Vikas Gautam