I am using the multiprocessing python module with Queue for communication between processes. Some processes only send (i.e. queue.put) and I can't seem to find a way to detect when the receiving end gets terminated abruptly.
Is there a way to detect if the process at the other end of the Queue gets terminated without having to get from the Queue? Isn't there a signal I could trap somehow? Or do I have to periodically get from the Queue and trap the EOFError manually.
I don't believe multiprocessing sets up a "watch-dog" process for you to take care of crashes or kills of some of your processes. It may be worth your while to set one up (pretty hard to do cross-platform, but if, say, you're only worried about Linux, it's not that terrible).
Related
I am writing a python script which uses multiprocessing, multithreading and zeromq for interprocess communication. It all works fine until the program finishes: at that time the child processes terminate properly (sigwait is intercepted and the child procs terminate which I have confirmed with the ps command) but the main process often does not shut down - occasionally it does, but most of the time it does not. I have confirmed that all remaining threads of the main process are daemonic and that the last row of the script is executed properly (it is a logging.info call). I am using fork for forking processes and can see that a Forkprocess still runs in addition to the main process.
What is the best way to debug this, considering that the script has actually finished ? Maybe add a pdb or breakpoint() right at the end ?
Thanks in advance.
Here is the output, after the last row the script usually does not terminate:
INFO root::remaining active child processes: [<ForkProcess name='SyncManager-1' pid=6362 parent=6361 started>]
INFO root::non-daemonic threads which are still running, preventing orderly shutdown: [].
INFO root::======== PID: 6361 main() end: shut down completed.=========
EDIT:
I refactored the code and noticed that it now misbehaves very rarely. I am 99.9% certain that it is due to an open zeromq REQ/REP 'socket' at the time of shutdown. The refactoring made sure that these sockets are only held open only for a very short time - but it is not predictable what sockets are open at shutdown so occasionally it still hangs.
I will write a simple testharness with two processes communicating via REQ/REP sockets then shut down the child process followed by main process. I expect same result, i.e., interpreter not shutting down. Lets see, keep you posted.
I think you could try viztracer. The good thing about viztracer is that it can display all the processes on the same timeline. Maybe you can catch what's stopping your main process/forked process from shutting down. If it's a deadlock it should be noticeable. However, without the code, I really can't tell if it would help for sure.
I am in a situation where I have two endpoints I can ask for a value, and one may be faster than the other. The calls to the endpoints are blocking. I want to wait for one to complete and take that result without waiting for the other to complete.
My solution was to issue the requests in separate threads and have those threads set a flag to true when they complete. In the main thread, I continuously check the flags (I know it is a busy wait, but that is not my primary concern right now) and when one completes it takes that value and returns it as the result.
The issue I have is that I never clean up the other thread. I can't find any way to do it without using .join(), which would just block and defeat the purpose of this whole thing. So, how can I clean up that other, slower thread that is blocking without joining it from the main thread?
What you want is to make your threads daemons, so when you get the result and finish your main, the other running thread will be forced to finish. You do that by changing the daemon keyword to True:
tr = threading.Thread(daemon=True)
From the threading docs:
The significance of this flag is that the entire Python program exits
when only daemon threads are left.
Although:
Daemon threads are abruptly stopped at shutdown. Their resources (such
as open files, database transactions, etc.) may not be released
properly. If you want your threads to stop gracefully, make them
non-daemonic and use a suitable signalling mechanism such as an Event.
I don't have any particular experience with Events so can't elaborate on that. Feel free to click the link and read on.
One bad and dirty solution is to implement a methode for the threads which close the socket which is blocking. Now you have to catch the exception in the main thread.
I have a program (say, "prog") written in C that makes many numerical operations. I want to write a "driver" utility in python that runs the "prog" with different configurations in a parallel way, reads its outputs and logs them. There are several issues to take into account:
All sort of things can go bad any time so logging has to be done as soon as possible after any prog instance finishes.
Several progs can finish simultaneously so logging should be done centralized
workers may be killed somehow and driver has to handle that situation properly
all workers and logger must be terminated correctly without tons of backtraces when KeyboardInterrupt is handled
The first two points make me think that all workers have to send their results to some centralized logger worker through for example multiprocessing.Queue. But it seems that the third point makes this solution a bad one because if a worker is killed the queue is going to become corrupted. So the Queue is not suitable. Instead I can use multiple process to process pipes (i.e. every worker is connected through the pipe with a logger). But then the other problems raise:
reading from pipe is a blocking operation so one logger can't read asynchronously from several workers (use threads?)
if a worker is killed and a pipe is corrupted, how the logger can diagnose this?
P.S. point #4 seems to be solveable -- a have to
disable default SIGINT handling in all workers and logger;
add try except block to main process that makes pool.terminate();pool.join() calls in case of SIGINT exception handled.
Could you please suggest a better design approach if possible and if not than how to tackle the problems described above?
P.S. python 2.7
You can start from the answer given here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/23369802/4323
The idea is to not use subprocess.call() which is blocking, but instead subprocess.Popen which is non-blocking. Set stdout of each instance to e.g. a StringIO object you create for each prog child. Spawn all the progs, wait for them, write their output. Should be not far off from the code shown above.
I am developing a small Python program for the Raspberry Pi that listens for some events on a Zigbee network.
The way I've written this is rather simplisic, I have a while(True): loop checking for a Uniquie ID (UID) from the Zigbee. If a UID is received it's sent to a dictionary containing some callback methods. So, for instance, in the dictionary the key 101 is tied to a method called PrintHello().
So if that key/UID is received method PrintHello will be executed - pretty simple, like so:
if self.expectedCallBacks.has_key(UID) == True:
self.expectedCallBacks[UID]()
I know this approach is probably too simplistic. My main concern is, what if the system is busy handling a method and the system receives another message?
On an embedded MCU I can handle easily with a circuler buffer + interrupts but I'm a bit lost with it comes to doing this with a RPi. Do I need to implement a new thread for the Zigbee module that basically fills a buffer that the call back handler can then retrieve/read from?
I would appreciate any suggestions on how to implement this more robustly.
Threads can definitely help to some degree here. Here's a simple example using a ThreadPool:
from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool
pool = ThreadPool(2) # Create a 2-thread pool
while True:
uid = zigbee.get_uid()
if uid in self.expectedCallbacks:
pool.apply_async(self.expectedCallbacks[UID])
That will kick off the callback in a thread in the thread pool, and should help prevent events from getting backed up before you can send them to a callback handler. The ThreadPool will internally handle queuing up any tasks that can't be run when all the threads in the pool are already doing work.
However, remember that Raspberry Pi's have only one CPU core, so you can't execute more than one CPU-based operation concurrently (and that's even ignoring the limitations of threading in Python caused by the GIL, which is normally solved by using multiple processes instead of threads). That means no matter how many threads/processes you have, only one can get access to the CPU at a time. For that reason, you probably don't want more than one thread actually running the callbacks, since as you add more you're just going to slow things down, due to the OS needing to constantly switch between threads.
I want to create some worker processes and if they crash due to an exception, I would like them to respawn. Aside from the is_alive method in the multiprocessing module, I can't seem to find a way to do this.
This would require me to iterate over all the running processes (after a sleep) and check if they are alive. This is essentially a busy loop, I was wondering if there was a better solution that will wake up my program in the event that any one of my worker processes has crashed. Once it wakes up, I would like to log th exception that crashed my program and launch another process.
Polling to see if the child processes are alive should work fine, since it's a low-overhead check and you don't need to check that often.
The first answer to this (similar) question has a Python code example: Multi-server monitor/auto restarter in python
You can wrap your worker processes in try/except blocks where the except pushes a message onto a pipe before raising. Of course, polling isn't really worse than this and it's simpler.
If you're on a unix-like system, your main program can be notified of dead children by installing a signal handler. Look up your operating system's documentation on signal(), especially SIGCHLD. I'm afraid I don't remember whether Windows covers SIGCHLD with its very limited POSIX signal support.