Develop Reference

Which is more efficient? threading.Thread vs threading.Timer

This is more out of theoretical curiosity than an actual problem I am having.
Say you want to run some code at a regular interval, what are the pros and cons of using a Timer vs using a thread + time.sleep in terms of CPU consumption?
The two below approaches do the same. I am aware that the Thread approach is not exactly one second interval, but rather adds a delay after each execution, which can matter if the task_function operation takes a long time. I am also aware that there are many other ways to solve this problem, but lets focus on the threading package.
Timer approach
def task_function():
print(time.time())
def task():
task_function()
threading.Timer(1,task).start()
task()
Thread approach
def task_function():
while True:
print(time.time())
time.sleep(1)
threading.Thread(target=task_function).start()
I read somewhere that starting a thread is quite resource intensive. So I wonder that if you had some code you wanted to run every 0.1 seconds, would the Timer approach not be sub-optimal since a new thread has to be started so often?

If the code must repeat on an interval, use the plain Thread (to be clear, Timer is just a thin wrapper around a Thread in the first place; it's implemented as a subclass). Spawning a new thread (via Timer) 10x a second is wasteful, and gains you nothing in any event.
You should make the worker thread a daemon thread though, unless you really want it to keep the process alive indefinitely.

Force Python to run in a single thread

I am using Python with the Rasbian OS (based on Linux) on the Raspberry Pi board. My Python script uses GPIOs (hardware inputs). I have noticed when a GPIO activates, its callback will interrupt the current thread.
This has forced me to use locks to prevent issues when the threads access common resources. However it is getting a bit complicated. It struck me that if the GPIO was 'queued up' until the main thread went to sleep (e.g. hits a time.sleep) it would simplify things considerably (i.e. like the way that javascript deals with things).
Is there a way to implement this in Python?

Are you using RPi.GPIO library? Or you call your Python code from C when a callback fires?
In case of RPi.GPIO, it runs a valid Python thread, and you do not need extra synchronization if you organize the threads interaction properly.
The most common pattern is to put your event in a queue (in case of Python 3 this library will do the job, Python 2 has this one). Then, when your main thread is ready to process the event, process all the events in your queue. The only problem is how you find a moment for processing them. The simplest solution is to implement a function that does that and call it from time to time. If you use a long sleep call, you may have to split it into many smaller sleeps to make sure the external events are processed often enough. You may even implement your own wrapper for sleep that splits one large delay into several smaller ones and processes the queue between them. The other solution is to use Queue.get with timeout parameter instead of sleep (it returns immediately after an event arrives into the queue), however, if you need to sleep exactly for a period you specified, you may have to do some extra magic such as measuring the time yourself and calling get again if you need to wait more after processing the events.

Use a Queue from the multithreading module to store the tasks you want to execute. The main loop periodically checks for entries in the queue and executes them one by one when it finds something.
You GPIO monitoring threads put their tasks into the queue (only one is required to collect from many threads).
You can model your tasks as callable objects or function objects.

Is calling QCoreApplications.processEvents() on a set interval safe?

I have a Qt application written in PySide (Qt Python binding). This application has a GUI thread and many different QThreads that are in charge of performing some heavy lifting - some rather long tasks. As such long task sometimes gets stuck (usually because it is waiting for a server response), the application sometimes freezes.
I was therefore wondering if it is safe to call QCoreApplication.processEvents() "manually" every second or so, so that the GUI event queue is cleared (processed)? Is that a good idea at all?

It's safe to call QCoreApplication.processEvents() whenever you like. The docs explicitly state your use case:
You can call this function occasionally when your program is busy
performing a long operation (e.g. copying a file).
There is no good reason though why threads would block the event loop in the main thread, though. (Unless your system really can't keep up.) So that's worth looking into anyway.

A couple of hints people might find useful:
A. You need to beware of the following:
Every so often the threads want to send stuff back to the main thread. So they post an event and call processEvents
If the code runs from the event also calls processEvents then instead of returning to the next statement, python can instead dispatch a worker thread again and that can then repeat this process.
The net result of this can be hundreds or thousands of nested processEvent statements which can then result in a recursion level exceeded error message.
Moral - if you are running a multi-threaded application do NOT call processEvents in any code initiated by a thread which runs in the main thread.
B. You need to be aware that CPython has a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) that limits threads so that only one can run at any one time and the way that Python decides which threads to run is counter-intuitive. Running process events from a worker thread does not seem to do what it says on the can, and CPU time is not allocated to the main thread or to Python internal threads. I am still experimenting, but it seems that putting worker threads to sleep for a few miliseconds allows other threads to get a look in.

Resource usage of "time.sleep" in loop vs. "threading.Timer"

First method:
import threading
import time
def keepalive():
while True:
print 'Alive.'
time.sleep(200)
threading.Thread(target=keepalive).start()
Second method:
import threading
def keepalive():
print 'Alive.'
threading.Timer(200, keepalive).start()
threading.Timer(200, keepalive).start()
Which method takes up more RAM? And in the second method, does the thread end after being activated? or does it remain in the memory and start a new thread? (multiple threads)

Timer creates a new thread object for each started timer, so it certainly needs more resources when creating and garbage collecting these objects.
As each thread exits immediately after it spawned another active_count stays constant, but there are constantly new Threads created and destroyed, which causes overhead. I'd say the first method is definitely better.
Altough you won't realy see much difference, only if the interval is very small.

Here's an example of how to test this yourself:
And in the second method, does the thread end after being activated? or does it remain in the memory and start a new thread? (multiple threads)
import threading
def keepalive():
print 'Alive.'
threading.Timer(200, keepalive).start()
print threading.active_count()
threading.Timer(200, keepalive).start()
I also changed the 200 to .2 so it wouldn't take as long.
The thread count was 3 forever.
Then I did this:
top -pid 24767
The #TH column never changed.
So, there's your answer: We don't have enough info to know whether Python maintains a single timer thread for all of the timers, or ends and cleans up the thread as soon as the timer runs, but we can be sure the threads doesn't stick around and pile up. (If you do want to know which of the former is happening, you can, e.g., print the thread ids.)
An alternative way to find out is to look at the source. As the documentation says, "Timer is a subclass of Thread and as such also functions as an example of creating custom threads". The fact that it's a subclass of Thread already tells you that each Timer is a Thread. And the fact that it "functions as an example" implies that it ought to be easy to read. If you click the link form the documentation to the source, you can see how trivial it is. Most of the work is done by Event, but that's in the same source file, and it's almost as simple. Effectively, it just creates a condition variable, waits on it (so it blocks until it times out, or you notify the condition by calling cancel), then quits.
The reason I'm answering one sub-question and explaining how I did it, rather than answering each sub-question, is because I think it would be more useful for you to walk through the same steps.
On further reflection, this probably isn't a question to be decided by optimization in the first place:
If you have a simple, synchronous program that needs to do nothing for 200 seconds, make a blocking call to sleep. Or, even simpler, just do the job and quit, and pick an external tool to schedule your script to run every 200s.
On the other hand, if your program is inherently asynchronous—especially if you've already got thread, signal handlers, and/or an event loop—there's just no way you're going to get sleep to work. If Timer is too inefficient, go to PyPI or ActiveState and find a better timer that lets you schedule repeatable timers (or even multiple timers) with a single instance and thread. (Or, if you're using signals, use signal.alarm or setitimer, and if you're using an event loop, build the timer into your main loop.)
I can't think of any use case where sleep and Timer would both be serious contenders.

Python: set a function timeout without using signal or threads?

Is there a way to have a function raise an error if it takes longer than a certain amount of time to return? I want to do this without using signal (because I am not in the main thread) or by spawning more threads, which is cumbersome.

If your function is looping through a lot of things, you could check the elapsed time during each iteration of the loop... but if it's blocked on something for the long period, then you need to have some other thread which can be handling the timing stuff while the thread you're timing is blocked.