How would I run two lines of code at the exact same time in Python 2.7? I think it's called parallel processing or something like that but I can't be too sure.
You can use either multi threading or multiprocessing.
You will need to use queues for the task.
The sample code below will help you get started with multi threading.
import threading
import Queue
import datetime
import time
class myThread(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self, in_queue, out_queue):
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
self.in_queue = in_queue
self.out_queue = out_queue
def run(self):
while True:
item = self.in_queue.get() #blocking till something is available in the queue
#run your lines of code here
processed_data = item + str(datetime.now()) + 'Processed'
self.out_queue.put(processed_data)
IN_QUEUE = Queue.Queue()
OUT_QUEUE = Queue.Queue()
#starting 10 threads to do your work in parallel
for i in range(10):
t = myThread(IN_QUEUE, OUT_QUEUE)
t.setDaemon(True)
t.start()
#now populate your input queue
for i in range(3000):
IN_QUEUE.put("string to process")
while not IN_QUEUE.empty():
print "Data left to process - ", IN_QUEUE.qsize()
time.sleep(10)
#finally printing output
while not OUT_QUEUE.empty():
print OUT_QUEUE.get()
This script starts 10 threads to process a string. Waits till the input queue has been processed, then prints the output with the time of processing.
You can define multiple classes of threads for different kinds of processing. Or you put function objects in the queue and have different functions running in parallel.
It depends on what you mean by at the exact same time. If you want something that doesn't stop while something else that takes a while runs, threads are a decent option. If you want to truly run two things in parallel, multiprocessing is the way to go: http://docs.python.org/2/library/multiprocessing.html
if you mean for example start a timer and start a loop and exactly after that, I think you can you ; like this: start_timer; start_loop in one line
there is a powerful package to run parallel jobs using python: use JobLib.
Related
I have a large dataset in a list that I need to do some work on.
I want to start x amounts of threads to work on the list at any given time, until everything in that list has been popped.
I know how to start x amounts of threads (lets say 20) at a given time (by using thread1....thread20.start())
but how do I make it start a new thread when one of the first 20 threads finish? so at any given time there are 20 threads running, until the list is empty.
what I have so far:
class queryData(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self,threadID):
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
self.threadID = threadID
def run(self):
global lst
#Get trade from list
trade = lst.pop()
tradeId=trade[0][1][:6]
print tradeId
thread1 = queryData(1)
thread1.start()
Update
I have something going with the following code:
for i in range(20):
threads.append(queryData(i))
for thread in threads:
thread.start()
while len(lst)>0:
for iter,thread in enumerate(threads):
thread.join()
lock.acquire()
threads[iter] = queryData(i)
threads[iter].start()
lock.release()
Now it starts 20 threads in the beginning...and then keeps starting a new thread when one finishes.
However, it is not efficient, as it waits for the first one in the list to finish, and then the second..and so on.
Is there a better way of doing this?
Basically I need:
-Start 20 threads:
-While list is not empty:
-wait for 1 of the 20 threads to finish
-reuse or start a new thread
As I suggested in a comment, I think using a multiprocessing.pool.ThreadPool would be appropriate — because it would handle much of the thread management you're manually doing in your code automatically. Once all the threads are queued-up for processing via ThreadPool's apply_async() method calls, the only thing that needs to be done is wait until they've all finished execution (unless there's something else your code could be doing, of course).
I've translated the code in my linked answer to another related question so it's more similar to what you appear to be doing to make it easier to understand in the current context.
from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool
from random import randint
import threading
import time
MAX_THREADS = 5
print_lock = threading.Lock() # Prevent overlapped printing from threads.
def query_data(trade):
trade_id = trade[0][1][:6]
time.sleep(randint(1, 3)) # Simulate variable working time for testing.
with print_lock:
print(trade_id)
def process_trades(trade_list):
pool = ThreadPool(processes=MAX_THREADS)
results = []
while(trade_list):
trade = trade_list.pop()
results.append(pool.apply_async(query_data, (trade,)))
pool.close() # Done adding tasks.
pool.join() # Wait for all tasks to complete.
def test():
trade_list = [[['abc', ('%06d' % id) + 'defghi']] for id in range(1, 101)]
process_trades(trade_list)
if __name__ == "__main__":
test()
You can wait for a thread to complete with : thread.join(). This call will block until that thread completes, at which point you can create a new one.
However, instead of respawning a Thread each time, why not recycle your existing threads ?
This can be done by the use of tasks for example. You keep a list of tasks in a shared collection, and when one of your threads finishes a task, it retrieves another one from that collection.
I have searched and cannot find an answer to this question elsewhere. Hopefully I haven't missed something.
I am trying to use Python multiprocessing to essentially batch run some proprietary models in parallel. I have, say, 200 simulations, and I want to batch run them ~10-20 at a time. My problem is that the proprietary software crashes if two models happen to start at the same / similar time. I need to introduce a delay between processes spawned by multiprocessing so that each new model run waits a little bit before starting.
So far, my solution has been to introduced a random time delay at the start of the child process before it fires off the model run. However, this only reduces the probability of any two runs starting at the same time, and therefore I still run into problems when trying to process a large number of models. I therefore think that the time delay needs to be built into the multiprocessing part of the code but I haven't been able to find any documentation or examples of this.
Edit: I am using Python 2.7
This is my code so far:
from time import sleep
import numpy as np
import subprocess
import multiprocessing
def runmodels(arg):
sleep(np.random.rand(1,1)*120) # this is my interim solution to reduce the probability that any two runs start at the same time, but it isn't a guaranteed solution
subprocess.call(arg) # this line actually fires off the model run
if __name__ == '__main__':
arguments = [big list of runs in here
]
count = 12
pool = multiprocessing.Pool(processes = count)
r = pool.imap_unordered(runmodels, arguments)
pool.close()
pool.join()
multiprocessing.Pool() already limits number of processes running concurrently.
You could use a lock, to separate the starting time of the processes (not tested):
import threading
import multiprocessing
def init(lock):
global starting
starting = lock
def run_model(arg):
starting.acquire() # no other process can get it until it is released
threading.Timer(1, starting.release).start() # release in a second
# ... start your simulation here
if __name__=="__main__":
arguments = ...
pool = Pool(processes=12,
initializer=init, initargs=[multiprocessing.Lock()])
for _ in pool.imap_unordered(run_model, arguments):
pass
One way to do this with thread and semaphore :
from time import sleep
import subprocess
import threading
def runmodels(arg):
subprocess.call(arg)
sGlobal.release() # release for next launch
if __name__ == '__main__':
threads = []
global sGlobal
sGlobal = threading.Semaphore(12) #Semaphore for max 12 Thread
arguments = [big list of runs in here
]
for arg in arguments :
sGlobal.acquire() # Block if more than 12 thread
t = threading.Thread(target=runmodels, args=(arg,))
threads.append(t)
t.start()
sleep(1)
for t in threads :
t.join()
The answer suggested by jfs caused problems for me as a result of starting a new thread with threading.Timer. If the worker just so happens to finish before the timer does, the timer is killed and the lock is never released.
I propose an alternative route, in which each successive worker will wait until enough time has passed since the start of the previous one. This seems to have the same desired effect, but without having to rely on another child process.
import multiprocessing as mp
import time
def init(shared_val):
global start_time
start_time = shared_val
def run_model(arg):
with start_time.get_lock():
wait_time = max(0, start_time.value - time.time())
time.sleep(wait_time)
start_time.value = time.time() + 1.0 # Specify interval here
# ... start your simulation here
if __name__=="__main__":
arguments = ...
pool = mp.Pool(processes=12,
initializer=init, initargs=[mp.Value('d')])
for _ in pool.imap_unordered(run_model, arguments):
pass
I am new to threading an I have existing application that I would like to make a little quicker using threading.
I have several functions that return to a main Dict and would like to send these to separate threads so that run at the same time rather than one at a time.
I have done a little googling but I cant seem to find something that fits my existing code and could use a little help.
I have around six functions that return to the main Dict like this:
parsed['cryptomaps'] = pipes.ConfigParse.crypto(parsed['split-config'], parsed['asax'], parsed['names'])
The issue here is with the return value. I understand that I would need to use a queue for this but would I need a queue for each of these six functions or one queue for all of these. If it is the later how would I separate the returns from the threads and assign the to the correct Dict entries.
Any help on this would be great.
John
You can push tuples of (worker, data) to queue to identify the source.
Also please note that due to Global Interpreter Lock Python threading is not very useful. I suggest to take a look at multiprocessing module which offers interface very similiar to multithreading but will actually scale with number of workers.
Edit:
Code sample.
import multiprocessing as mp
# py 3 compatibility
try:
from future_builtins import range, map
except ImportError:
pass
data = [
# input data
# {split_config: ... }
]
def crypto(split_config, asax, names):
# your code here
pass
if __name__ == "__main__":
terminate = mp.Event()
input = mp.Queue()
output = mp.Queue()
def worker(id, terminate, input, output):
# use event here to graciously exit
# using Process.terminate would leave queues
# in undefined state
while not terminate.is_set():
try:
x = input.get(True, timeout=1000)
output.put((id, crypto(**x)))
except Queue.Empty:
pass
workers = [mp.Process(target=worker, args=(i, )) for i in range(0, mp.cpu_count())]
for worker in workers:
worker.start()
for x in data:
input.put(x)
# terminate workers
terminate.set()
# process results
# make sure that queues are emptied otherwise Process.join can deadlock
for worker in workers:
worker.join()
I have a problem running multiple processes in python3 .
My program does the following:
1. Takes entries from an sqllite database and passes them to an input_queue
2. Create multiple processes that take items off the input_queue, run it through a function and output the result to the output queue.
3. Create a thread that takes items off the output_queue and prints them (This thread is obviously started before the first 2 steps)
My problem is that currently the 'function' in step 2 is only run as many times as the number of processes set, so for example if you set the number of processes to 8, it only runs 8 times then stops. I assumed it would keep running until it took all items off the input_queue.
Do I need to rewrite the function that takes the entries out of the database (step 1) into another process and then pass its output queue as an input queue for step 2?
Edit:
Here is an example of the code, I used a list of numbers as a substitute for the database entries as it still performs the same way. I have 300 items on the list and I would like it to process all 300 items, but at the moment it just processes 10 (the number of processes I have assigned)
#!/usr/bin/python3
from multiprocessing import Process,Queue
import multiprocessing
from threading import Thread
## This is the class that would be passed to the multi_processing function
class Processor:
def __init__(self,out_queue):
self.out_queue = out_queue
def __call__(self,in_queue):
data_entry = in_queue.get()
result = data_entry*2
self.out_queue.put(result)
#Performs the multiprocessing
def perform_distributed_processing(dbList,threads,processor_factory,output_queue):
input_queue = Queue()
# Create the Data processors.
for i in range(threads):
processor = processor_factory(output_queue)
data_proc = Process(target = processor,
args = (input_queue,))
data_proc.start()
# Push entries to the queue.
for entry in dbList:
input_queue.put(entry)
# Push stop markers to the queue, one for each thread.
for i in range(threads):
input_queue.put(None)
data_proc.join()
output_queue.put(None)
if __name__ == '__main__':
output_results = Queue()
def output_results_reader(queue):
while True:
item = queue.get()
if item is None:
break
print(item)
# Establish results collecting thread.
results_process = Thread(target = output_results_reader,args = (output_results,))
results_process.start()
# Use this as a substitute for the database in the example
dbList = [i for i in range(300)]
# Perform multi processing
perform_distributed_processing(dbList,10,Processor,output_results)
# Wait for it all to finish.
results_process.join()
A collection of processes that service an input queue and write to an output queue is pretty much the definition of a process pool.
If you want to know how to build one from scratch, the best way to learn is to look at the source code for multiprocessing.Pool, which is pretty simply Python, and very nicely written. But, as you might expect, you can just use multiprocessing.Pool instead of re-implementing it. The examples in the docs are very nice.
But really, you could make this even simpler by using an executor instead of a pool. It's hard to explain the difference (again, read the docs for both modules), but basically, a future is a "smart" result object, which means instead of a pool with a variety of different ways to run jobs and get results, you just need a dumb thing that doesn't know how to do anything but return futures. (Of course in the most trivial cases, the code looks almost identical either way…)
from concurrent.futures import ProcessPoolExecutor
def Processor(data_entry):
return data_entry*2
def perform_distributed_processing(dbList, threads, processor_factory):
with ProcessPoolExecutor(processes=threads) as executor:
yield from executor.map(processor_factory, dbList)
if __name__ == '__main__':
# Use this as a substitute for the database in the example
dbList = [i for i in range(300)]
for result in perform_distributed_processing(dbList, 8, Processor):
print(result)
Or, if you want to handle them as they come instead of in order:
def perform_distributed_processing(dbList, threads, processor_factory):
with ProcessPoolExecutor(processes=threads) as executor:
fs = (executor.submit(processor_factory, db) for db in dbList)
yield from map(Future.result, as_completed(fs))
Notice that I also replaced your in-process queue and thread, because it wasn't doing anything but providing a way to interleave "wait for the next result" and "process the most recent result", and yield (or yield from, in this case) does that without all the complexity, overhead, and potential for getting things wrong.
Don't try to rewrite the whole multiprocessing library again. I think you can use any of multiprocessing.Pool methods depending on your needs - if this is a batch job you can even use the synchronous multiprocessing.Pool.map() - only instead of pushing to input queue, you need to write a generator that yields input to the threads.
I have two different functions f, and g that compute the same result with different algorithms. Sometimes one or the other takes a long time while the other terminates quickly. I want to create a new function that runs each simultaneously and then returns the result from the first that finishes.
I want to create that function with a higher order function
h = firstresult(f, g)
What is the best way to accomplish this in Python?
I suspect that the solution involves threading. I'd like to avoid discussion of the GIL.
I would simply use a Queue for this. Start the threads and the first one which has a result ready writes to the queue.
Code
from threading import Thread
from time import sleep
from Queue import Queue
def firstresult(*functions):
queue = Queue()
threads = []
for f in functions:
def thread_main():
queue.put(f())
thread = Thread(target=thread_main)
threads.append(thread)
thread.start()
result = queue.get()
return result
def slow():
sleep(1)
return 42
def fast():
return 0
if __name__ == '__main__':
print firstresult(slow, fast)
Live demo
http://ideone.com/jzzZX2
Notes
Stopping the threads is an entirely different topic. For this you need to add some state variable to the threads which needs to be checked in regular intervals. As I want to keep this example short I simply assumed that part and assumed that all workers get the time to finish their work even though the result is never read.
Skipping the discussion about the Gil as requested by the questioner. ;-)
Now - unlike my suggestion on the other answer, this piece of code does exactly what you are requesting:
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue
import random
import time
def firstresult(func1, func2):
queue = Queue()
proc1 = Process(target=func1,args=(queue,))
proc2 = Process(target=func2, args=(queue,))
proc1.start();proc2.start()
result = queue.get()
proc1.terminate(); proc2.terminate()
return result
def algo1(queue):
time.sleep(random.uniform(0,1))
queue.put("algo 1")
def algo2(queue):
time.sleep(random.uniform(0,1))
queue.put("algo 2")
print firstresult(algo1, algo2)
Run each function in a new worker thread, the 2 worker threads send the result back to the main thread in a 1 item queue or something similar. When the main thread receives the result from the winner, it kills (do python threads support kill yet? lol.) both worker threads to avoid wasting time (one function may take hours while the other only takes a second).
Replace the word thread with process if you want.
You will need to run each function in another process (with multiprocessing) or in a different thread.
If both are CPU bound, multithread won help much - exactly due to the GIL -
so multiprocessing is the way.
If the return value is a pickleable (serializable) object, I have this decorator I created that simply runs the function in background, in another process:
https://bitbucket.org/jsbueno/lelo/src
It is not exactly what you want - as both are non-blocking and start executing right away. The tirck with this decorator is that it blocks (and waits for the function to complete) as when you try to use the return value.
But on the other hand - it is just a decorator that does all the work.