Develop Reference

How to safe Python multithreading?

I have a thread code in python like this. But I am not sure whether I am doing in correct way or not.
Class MyThread(threading.thread):
def __init__(self, thread_id, thread_name):
self.thread_name = thread_name
self.thread_id = thread_id
def run(self):
do_something()
def do_something():
while True:
do_something_else()
time.sleep(5)
Class SomeClass:
def __init__():
pass
def run():
thread1 = MyThread(1, "thread1")
thread2 = MyThread(2, "thread2")
thread3 = MyThread(3, "thread3")
def main():
agent = Someclass()
agent.run()
Whether this is the safe way to deal with multiple thread? How does it impact other applications? Is there a chance, that execution of one thread can hinder the execution of others? What happens , if the threads got blocked in any cycle?
Also how to make sure that, thread doesn't gets blocked for forever b'coz of any reason. If it gets blocked , then after fixed timeinterval it should come out gracefully and continue in next loop.

That is why Python and some other languages introduce the lock
This page will help you, you need to read something about Lock, RLock and Condition

Your code's thread safety is really dependent on what's in do_something() and do_something_else(). It's thread safe if you're only modifying local variables. But the moment you start reading/modifying shared variables/storage, like a file or a global variable, then you need to use something like locks or semaphores to ensure thread safety.
You can read about Python's threading module here.
This Wikipedia articles on synchronization and locks may be helpful to you too.
If you need examples for writing multi-threading code, here's a good example using different synchronization mechanisms.

Return whichever expression returns first

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.

Simulating Cancellation Tokens in Python Threading

I just wrote a task queue in Python whose job is to limit the number of tasks that are run at one time. This is a little different than Queue.Queue because instead of limiting how many items can be in the queue, it limits how many can be taken out at one time. It still uses an unbounded Queue.Queue to do its job, but it relies on a Semaphore to limit the number of threads:
from Queue import Queue
from threading import BoundedSemaphore, Lock, Thread
class TaskQueue(object):
"""
Queues tasks to be run in separate threads and limits the number
concurrently running tasks.
"""
def __init__(self, limit):
"""Initializes a new instance of a TaskQueue."""
self.__semaphore = BoundedSemaphore(limit)
self.__queue = Queue()
self.__cancelled = False
self.__lock = Lock()
def enqueue(self, callback):
"""Indicates that the given callback should be ran."""
self.__queue.put(callback)
def start(self):
"""Tells the task queue to start running the queued tasks."""
thread = Thread(target=self.__process_items)
thread.start()
def stop(self):
self.__cancel()
# prevent blocking on a semaphore.acquire
self.__semaphore.release()
# prevent blocking on a Queue.get
self.__queue.put(lambda: None)
def __cancel(self):
print 'canceling'
with self.__lock:
self.__cancelled = True
def __process_items(self):
while True:
# see if the queue has been stopped before blocking on acquire
if self.__is_canceled():
break
self.__semaphore.acquire()
# see if the queue has been stopped before blocking on get
if self.__is_canceled():
break
callback = self.__queue.get()
# see if the queue has been stopped before running the task
if self.__is_canceled():
break
def runTask():
try:
callback()
finally:
self.__semaphore.release()
thread = Thread(target=runTask)
thread.start()
self.__queue.task_done()
def __is_canceled(self):
with self.__lock:
return self.__cancelled
The Python interpreter runs forever unless I explicitly stop the task queue. This is a lot more tricky than I thought it would be. If you look at the stop method, you'll see that I set a canceled flag, release the semaphore and put a no-op callback on the queue. The last two parts are necessary because the code could be blocking on the Semaphore or on the Queue. I basically have to force these to go through so that the loop has a chance to break out.
This code works. This class is useful when running a service that is trying to run thousands of tasks in parallel. In order to keep the machine running smoothly and to prevent the OS from screaming about too many active threads, this code will limit the number of threads living at any one time.
I have written a similar chunk of code in C# before. What made that code particular cut 'n' dry was that .NET has something called a CancellationToken that just about every threading class uses. Any time there is a blocking operation, that operation takes an optional token. If the parent task is ever canceled, any child tasks blocking with that token will be immediately canceled, as well. This seems like a much cleaner way to exit than to "fake it" by releasing semaphores or putting values in a queue.
I was wondering if there was an equivalent way of doing this in Python? I definitely want to be using threads instead of something like asynchronous events. I am wondering if there is a way to achieve the same thing using two Queue.Queues where one is has a max size and the other doesn't - but I'm still not sure how to handle cancellation.

I think your code can be simplified by using poisoning and Thread.join():
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
poison = object()
class TaskQueue(object):
def __init__(self, limit):
def process_items():
while True:
callback = self._queue.get()
if callback is poison:
break
try:
callback()
except:
pass
finally:
self._queue.task_done()
self._workers = [Thread(target=process_items) for _ in range(limit)]
self._queue = Queue()
def enqueue(self, callback):
self._queue.put(callback)
def start(self):
for worker in self._workers:
worker.start()
def stop(self):
for worker in self._workers:
self._queue.put(poison)
while self._workers:
self._workers.pop().join()
Untested.
I removed the comments, for brevity.
Also, in this version process_items() is truly private.
BTW: The whole point of the Queue module is to free you from the dreaded locking and event stuff.

You seem to be creating a new thread for each task from the queue. This is wasteful in itself, and also leads you to the problem of how to limit the number of threads.
Instead, a common approach is to create a fixed number of worker threads and let them freely pull tasks from the queue. To cancel the queue, you can clear it and let the workers stay alive in anticipation of future work.

I took Janne Karila's advice and created a thread pool. This eliminated the need for a semaphore. The problem is if you ever expect the queue to go away, you have to stop the worker threads from running (just a variation of what I did before). The new code is fairly similar:
class TaskQueue(object):
"""
Queues tasks to be run in separate threads and limits the number
concurrently running tasks.
"""
def __init__(self, limit):
"""Initializes a new instance of a TaskQueue."""
self.__workers = []
for _ in range(limit):
worker = Thread(target=self.__process_items)
self.__workers.append(worker)
self.__queue = Queue()
self.__cancelled = False
self.__lock = Lock()
self.__event = Event()
def enqueue(self, callback):
"""Indicates that the given callback should be ran."""
self.__queue.put(callback)
def start(self):
"""Tells the task queue to start running the queued tasks."""
for worker in self.__workers:
worker.start()
def stop(self):
"""
Stops the queue from processing anymore tasks. Any actively running
tasks will run to completion.
"""
self.__cancel()
# prevent blocking on a Queue.get
for _ in range(len(self.__workers)):
self.__queue.put(lambda: None)
self.__event.wait()
def __cancel(self):
with self.__lock:
self.__queue.queue.clear()
self.__cancelled = True
def __process_items(self):
while True:
callback = self.__queue.get()
# see if the queue has been stopped before running the task
if self.__is_canceled():
break
try:
callback()
except:
pass
finally:
self.__queue.task_done()
self.__event.set()
def __is_canceled(self):
with self.__lock:
return self.__cancelled
If you look carefully, I had to do some accounting to kill off the workers. I basically wait on an Event for as many times as there are workers. I clear the underlying queue to prevent workers from being cancelled any other way. I also wait after pumping each bogus value into the queue, so only one worker can cancel out at a time.
I've ran some tests on this and it appears to be working. It would still be nice to eliminate the need for bogus values.

Multi-threaded web scraping in Python/PySide/PyQt

I'm building a web scraper of a kind. Basically, what the soft would do is:
User (me) inputs some data (IDs) - IDs are complex, so not just numbers
Based on those IDs, the script visits http://localhost/ID
What is the best way to accomplish this? So I'm looking upwards of 20-30 concurrent connections to do it.
I was thinking, would a simple loop be the solution? This loop would start QThreads (it's a Qt app), so they would run concurrently.
The problem I am seeing with the loop however is how to instruct it to use only those IDs not used before i.e. in the iteration/thread that had been executed just before it was? Would I need some sort of a "delegator" function which will keep track of what IDs had been used and delegate the unused ones to the QThreads?
Now I've written some code but I am not sure if it is correct:
class GUI(QObject):
def __init__(self):
print "GUI CLASS INITIALIZED!!!"
self.worker = Worker()
for i in xrange(300):
QThreadPool().globalInstance().start(self.worker)
class Worker(QRunnable):
def run(self):
print "Hello world from thread", QThread.currentThread()
Now I'm not sure if these achieve really what I want. Is this actually running in separate threads? I'm asking because currentThread() is the same every time this is executed, so it doesn't look that way.
Basically, my question comes down to how do I execute several same QThreads concurrently?
Thanks in advance for the answer!

As Dikei says, Qt is red herring here. Focus on just using Python threads as it will keep your code much simpler.
In the code below we have a set, job_queue, containing the jobs to be executed. We also have a function, worker_thread which takes a job from the passed in queue and executes. Here it just sleeps for a random period of time. The key thing here is that set.pop is thread safe.
We create an array of thread objects, workers, and call start on each as we create it. From the Python documentation threading.Thread.start runs the given callable in a separate thread of control. Lastly we go through each worker thread and block until it has exited.
import threading
import random
import time
pool_size = 5
job_queue = set(range(100))
def worker_thread(queue):
while True:
try:
job = queue.pop()
except KeyError:
break
print "Processing %i..." % (job, )
time.sleep(random.random())
print "Thread exiting."
workers = []
for thread in range(pool_size):
workers.append(threading.Thread(target=worker_thread, args=(job_queue, )))
workers[-1].start()
for worker in workers:
worker.join()
print "All threads exited"

"select" on multiple Python multiprocessing Queues?

What's the best way to wait (without spinning) until something is available in either one of two (multiprocessing) Queues, where both reside on the same system?

Actually you can use multiprocessing.Queue objects in select.select. i.e.
que = multiprocessing.Queue()
(input,[],[]) = select.select([que._reader],[],[])
would select que only if it is ready to be read from.
No documentation about it though. I was reading the source code of the multiprocessing.queue library (at linux it's usually sth like /usr/lib/python2.6/multiprocessing/queue.py) to find it out.
With Queue.Queue I didn't have found any smart way to do this (and I would really love to).

It doesn't look like there's an official way to handle this yet. Or at least, not based on this:
http://bugs.python.org/issue3831
You could try something like what this post is doing -- accessing the underlying pipe filehandles:
http://haltcondition.net/?p=2319
and then use select.

Not sure how well the select on a multiprocessing queue works on windows. As select on windows listens for sockets and not file handles, I suspect there could be problems.
My answer is to make a thread to listen to each queue in a blocking fashion, and to put the results all into a single queue listened to by the main thread, essentially multiplexing the individual queues into a single one.
My code for doing this is:
"""
Allow multiple queues to be waited upon.
queue,value = multiq.select(list_of_queues)
"""
import queue
import threading
class queue_reader(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self,inq,sharedq):
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
self.inq = inq
self.sharedq = sharedq
def run(self):
while True:
data = self.inq.get()
print ("thread reads data=",data)
result = (self.inq,data)
self.sharedq.put(result)
class multi_queue(queue.Queue):
def __init__(self,list_of_queues):
queue.Queue.__init__(self)
for q in list_of_queues:
qr = queue_reader(q,self)
qr.start()
def select(list_of_queues):
outq = queue.Queue()
for q in list_of_queues:
qr = queue_reader(q,outq)
qr.start()
return outq.get()
The following test routine shows how to use it:
import multiq
import queue
q1 = queue.Queue()
q2 = queue.Queue()
q3 = multiq.multi_queue([q1,q2])
q1.put(1)
q2.put(2)
q1.put(3)
q1.put(4)
res=0
while not res==4:
while not q3.empty():
res = q3.get()[1]
print ("returning result =",res)
Hope this helps.
Tony Wallace

Seems like using threads which forward incoming items to a single Queue which you then wait on is a practical choice when using multiprocessing in a platform independent manner.
Avoiding the threads requires either handling low-level pipes/FDs which is both platform specific and not easy to handle consistently with the higher-level API.
Or you would need Queues with the ability to set callbacks which i think are the proper higher level interface to go for. I.e. you would write something like:
singlequeue = Queue()
incoming_queue1.setcallback(singlequeue.put)
incoming_queue2.setcallback(singlequeue.put)
...
singlequeue.get()
Maybe the multiprocessing package could grow this API but it's not there yet. The concept works well with py.execnet which uses the term "channel" instead of "queues", see here http://tinyurl.com/nmtr4w

As of Python 3.3 you can use multiprocessing.connection.wait to wait on multiple Queue._reader objects at once.

You could use something like the Observer pattern, wherein Queue subscribers are notified of state changes.
In this case, you could have your worker thread designated as a listener on each queue, and whenever it receives a ready signal, it can work on the new item, otherwise sleep.

New version of above code...
Not sure how well the select on a multiprocessing queue works on windows. As select on windows listens for sockets and not file handles, I suspect there could be problems.
My answer is to make a thread to listen to each queue in a blocking fashion, and to put the results all into a single queue listened to by the main thread, essentially multiplexing the individual queues into a single one.
My code for doing this is:
"""
Allow multiple queues to be waited upon.
An EndOfQueueMarker marks a queue as
"all data sent on this queue".
When this marker has been accessed on
all input threads, this marker is returned
by the multi_queue.
"""
import queue
import threading
class EndOfQueueMarker:
def __str___(self):
return "End of data marker"
pass
class queue_reader(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self,inq,sharedq):
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
self.inq = inq
self.sharedq = sharedq
def run(self):
q_run = True
while q_run:
data = self.inq.get()
result = (self.inq,data)
self.sharedq.put(result)
if data is EndOfQueueMarker:
q_run = False
class multi_queue(queue.Queue):
def __init__(self,list_of_queues):
queue.Queue.__init__(self)
self.qList = list_of_queues
self.qrList = []
for q in list_of_queues:
qr = queue_reader(q,self)
qr.start()
self.qrList.append(qr)
def get(self,blocking=True,timeout=None):
res = []
while len(res)==0:
if len(self.qList)==0:
res = (self,EndOfQueueMarker)
else:
res = queue.Queue.get(self,blocking,timeout)
if res[1] is EndOfQueueMarker:
self.qList.remove(res[0])
res = []
return res
def join(self):
for qr in self.qrList:
qr.join()
def select(list_of_queues):
outq = queue.Queue()
for q in list_of_queues:
qr = queue_reader(q,outq)
qr.start()
return outq.get()
The follow code is my test routine to show how it works:
import multiq
import queue
q1 = queue.Queue()
q2 = queue.Queue()
q3 = multiq.multi_queue([q1,q2])
q1.put(1)
q2.put(2)
q1.put(3)
q1.put(4)
q1.put(multiq.EndOfQueueMarker)
q2.put(multiq.EndOfQueueMarker)
res=0
have_data = True
while have_data:
res = q3.get()[1]
print ("returning result =",res)
have_data = not(res==multiq.EndOfQueueMarker)

The one situation where I'm usually tempted to multiplex multiple queues is when each queue corresponds to a different type of message that requires a different handler. You can't just pull from one queue because if it isn't the type of message you want, you need to put it back.
However, in this case, each handler is essentially a separate consumer, which makes it an a multi-producer, multi-consumer problem. Fortunately, even in this case you still don't need to block on multiple queues. You can create different thread/process for each handler, with each handler having its own queue. Basically, you can just break it into multiple instances of a multi-producer, single-consumer problem.
The only situation I can think of where you would have to wait on multiple queues is if you were forced to put multiple handlers in the same thread/process. In that case, I would restructure it by creating a queue for my main thread, spawning a thread for each handler, and have the handlers communicate with the main thread using the main queue. Each handler could then have a separate queue for its unique type of message.

Don't do it.
Put a header on the messages and send them to a common queue. This simplifies the code and will be cleaner overall.