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.
Related
My script loops through each line of an input file and performs some actions using the string in each line. Since the tasks performed on each line are independent of each other, I decided to separate the task into threads so that the script doesn't have to wait for the task to complete to continue with the loop. The code is given below.
def myFunction(line, param):
# Doing something with line and param
# Sends multiple HTTP requests and parse the response and produce outputs
# Returns nothing
param = arg[1]
with open(targets, "r") as listfile:
for line in listfile:
print("Starting a thread for: ",line)
t=threading.Thread(target=myFunction, args=(line, param,))
threads.append(t)
t.start()
I realized that this is a bad idea as the number of lines in the input file grew large. With this code, there would be as many threads as the number of lines. Researched a bit and figured that queues would be the way.
I want to understand the optimal way of using queues for this scenario and if there are any alternatives which I can use.
To go around this problem, you can use the concept of Thread Pools, where you define a fixed number of Threads/workers to be used, for example 5 workers, and whenever a Thread finishes executing, an other Future(ly) submmited thread would take its place automatically.
Example :
import concurrent.futures
def myFunction(line, param):
print("Done with :", line, param)
param = "param_example"
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=5) as executor:
futures = []
with open("targets", "r") as listfile:
for line in listfile:
print("Starting a thread for: ", line)
futures.append(executor.submit(myFunction, line=line, param=param))
# waiting for the threads to finish and maybe print a result :
for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(futures):
print(future.result()) # an Exceptino should be handled here!!!
Queues are one way to do it. The way to use them is to put function parameters on a queue, and use threads to get them and do the processing.
The queue size doesn't matter too much in this case because reading the next line is fast. In another case, a more optimized solution would be to set the queue size to at least twice the number of threads. That way if all threads finish processing an item from the queue at the same time, they will all have the next item in the queue ready to be processed.
To avoid complicating the code threads can be set as daemonic so that they don't stop the program from finishing after the processing is done. They will be terminated when the main process finishes.
The alternative is to put a special item on the queue (like None) for each thread and make the threads exit after getting it from the queue and then join the threads.
For the examples bellow the number of worker threads is set using the workers variable.
Here is an example of a solution using a queue.
from queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
queue = Queue(workers * 2)
def work():
while True:
myFunction(*queue.get())
queue.task_done()
for _ in range(workers):
Thread(target=work, daemon=True).start()
with open(targets, 'r') as listfile:
for line in listfile:
queue.put((line, param))
queue.join()
A simpler solution might be using ThreadPoolExecutor. It is especially simple in this case because the function being called doesn't return anything that needs to be used in the main thread.
from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor
with ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=workers) as executor:
with open(targets, 'r') as listfile:
for line in listfile:
executor.submit(myFunction, line, param)
Also, if it's not a problem to have all lines stored in memory, there is a solution which doesn't use anything other than threads. The work is split in such a way that the threads read some lines from a list and ignore other lines. A simple example with two threads is where one thread reads odd lines and the other reads even lines.
from threading import Thread
with open(targets, 'r') as listfile:
lines = listfile.readlines()
def work_split(n):
for line in lines[n::workers]:
myFunction(line, param)
threads = []
for n in range(workers):
t = Thread(target=work_split, args=(n,))
t.start()
threads.append(t)
for t in threads:
t.join()
I have done a quick benchmark and the Queue is slightly faster than the ThreadPoolExecutor, but the solution with the split work is faster than both.
From the code you have reported, has no sense the use of thread.
This because there aren't any I/O operations, and so the threads are executed in a linear way without multithread. The GIL (Global Interpreter Lock) is never released by a thread in this case, so the application is only apparently using multithreading, in reality the interpreter is using only one CPU for the program and one thread at time.
In this way you don't have any advantages on use of thread, on the contrary you can have a performance degradation for this scenario, due to the switch context, and to the thread initialization overhead when a thread starts.
The only way to have better performance in this scenario, if applicable in this case, is a multiprocess program. But pay attention on the number of process that you start, remember that every process has its own interpreter.
It was a good answer by GitFront. This answer just adds one more option using the multiprocessing package.
Using concurrent.futures or multiprocessing depends on particular requirements. Multiprocessing has a lot more options comparatively but for the given question the results should be near identical in the simplest case.
from multiprocessing import cpu_count, Pool
PROCESSES = cpu_count() # Warning: uses all cores
def pool_method(listfile, param):
p = Pool(processes=PROCESSES)
checker = [p.apply_async(myFunction, (line, param)) for line in listfile]
...
There are various other methods too other than "apply_async", but this should work well for your needs.
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.
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 would like to control the number of Processes spawned while using the multiprocessing package.
Say I only want three processes active at the same time. The only way I know how to do this is:
import multiprocessing
import Queue
def worker(arg):
## Do stuff
return returnvalue
argument = list(1,2,3,4,5,6)
aliveprocesses = 0
jobs = Queue.Queue()
for arg in argument:
while jobs.qsize() > 2:
jobs.get().join()
p = multiprocessing.Process(target=worker,args=(arg,))
jobs.put(p)
p.start()
Basically I only know how to monitor one process at a time using the Process.join() function. I monitor the oldest process until it is done and then create a new process. For my program the oldest process should finish before the others, on average. But who knows? Maybe another process finishes first and I would have no way of knowing.
The only alternative I can think of is something like this:
import multiprocessing
import time
def worker(arg):
## Do stuff
return returnvalue
argument = list(1,2,3,4,5,6)
aliveprocesses = 0
jobs = set()
for arg in argument:
while aliveprocesses > 2:
for j in jobs:
if not j.is_alive():
aliveprocesses -= 1
break
time.sleep(1)
p = multiprocessing.Process(target=worker,args=(arg,))
jobs.put(p)
p.start()
aliveprocesses += 1
In the above function you are checking all of processes if they are still alive. If they are all still alive you sleep for a bit and then check again until there is a dead process after which you spawn a new process. The problem here is that from what I understand the time.sleep() function is not a particularly efficient way to wait for a process to end.
Ideally I would like a function "superjoin()" like Process.join() only it uses a set of Process objects and when one Process within the set returns then superjoin() returns. And superjoin() does not itself use the time.sleep() function ie it's not being "passed the buck"
Since you seem to have a single (parallel) task, instead of managing processes individually, you should use the higher-level multiprocessing.Pool, which makes managing the number of processes easier.
You can't join a pool, but you have blocking calls (such as Pool.map) that perform this kind of task.
If you need finer-grained control, you may want to adapt Pool's source code
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.