Related
I need to run a shell command asynchronously from a Python script. By this I mean that I want my Python script to continue running while the external command goes off and does whatever it needs to do.
I read this post:
Calling an external command in Python
I then went off and did some testing, and it looks like os.system() will do the job provided that I use & at the end of the command so that I don't have to wait for it to return. What I am wondering is if this is the proper way to accomplish such a thing? I tried commands.call() but it will not work for me because it blocks on the external command.
Please let me know if using os.system() for this is advisable or if I should try some other route.
subprocess.Popen does exactly what you want.
from subprocess import Popen
p = Popen(['watch', 'ls']) # something long running
# ... do other stuff while subprocess is running
p.terminate()
(Edit to complete the answer from comments)
The Popen instance can do various other things like you can poll() it to see if it is still running, and you can communicate() with it to send it data on stdin, and wait for it to terminate.
If you want to run many processes in parallel and then handle them when they yield results, you can use polling like in the following:
from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
import time
running_procs = [
Popen(['/usr/bin/my_cmd', '-i %s' % path], stdout=PIPE, stderr=PIPE)
for path in '/tmp/file0 /tmp/file1 /tmp/file2'.split()]
while running_procs:
for proc in running_procs:
retcode = proc.poll()
if retcode is not None: # Process finished.
running_procs.remove(proc)
break
else: # No process is done, wait a bit and check again.
time.sleep(.1)
continue
# Here, `proc` has finished with return code `retcode`
if retcode != 0:
"""Error handling."""
handle_results(proc.stdout)
The control flow there is a little bit convoluted because I'm trying to make it small -- you can refactor to your taste. :-)
This has the advantage of servicing the early-finishing requests first. If you call communicate on the first running process and that turns out to run the longest, the other running processes will have been sitting there idle when you could have been handling their results.
This is covered by Python 3 Subprocess Examples under "Wait for command to terminate asynchronously". Run this code using IPython or python -m asyncio:
import asyncio
proc = await asyncio.create_subprocess_exec(
'ls','-lha',
stdout=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE,
stderr=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE)
# do something else while ls is working
# if proc takes very long to complete, the CPUs are free to use cycles for
# other processes
stdout, stderr = await proc.communicate()
The process will start running as soon as the await asyncio.create_subprocess_exec(...) has completed. If it hasn't finished by the time you call await proc.communicate(), it will wait there in order to give you your output status. If it has finished, proc.communicate() will return immediately.
The gist here is similar to Terrels answer but I think Terrels answer appears to overcomplicate things.
See asyncio.create_subprocess_exec for more information.
What I am wondering is if this [os.system()] is the proper way to accomplish such a thing?
No. os.system() is not the proper way. That's why everyone says to use subprocess.
For more information, read http://docs.python.org/library/os.html#os.system
The subprocess module provides more
powerful facilities for spawning new
processes and retrieving their
results; using that module is
preferable to using this function. Use
the subprocess module. Check
especially the Replacing Older
Functions with the subprocess Module
section.
The accepted answer is very old.
I found a better modern answer here:
https://kevinmccarthy.org/2016/07/25/streaming-subprocess-stdin-and-stdout-with-asyncio-in-python/
and made some changes:
make it work on windows
make it work with multiple commands
import sys
import asyncio
if sys.platform == "win32":
asyncio.set_event_loop_policy(asyncio.WindowsProactorEventLoopPolicy())
async def _read_stream(stream, cb):
while True:
line = await stream.readline()
if line:
cb(line)
else:
break
async def _stream_subprocess(cmd, stdout_cb, stderr_cb):
try:
process = await asyncio.create_subprocess_exec(
*cmd, stdout=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE, stderr=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE
)
await asyncio.wait(
[
_read_stream(process.stdout, stdout_cb),
_read_stream(process.stderr, stderr_cb),
]
)
rc = await process.wait()
return process.pid, rc
except OSError as e:
# the program will hang if we let any exception propagate
return e
def execute(*aws):
""" run the given coroutines in an asyncio loop
returns a list containing the values returned from each coroutine.
"""
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
rc = loop.run_until_complete(asyncio.gather(*aws))
loop.close()
return rc
def printer(label):
def pr(*args, **kw):
print(label, *args, **kw)
return pr
def name_it(start=0, template="s{}"):
"""a simple generator for task names
"""
while True:
yield template.format(start)
start += 1
def runners(cmds):
"""
cmds is a list of commands to excecute as subprocesses
each item is a list appropriate for use by subprocess.call
"""
next_name = name_it().__next__
for cmd in cmds:
name = next_name()
out = printer(f"{name}.stdout")
err = printer(f"{name}.stderr")
yield _stream_subprocess(cmd, out, err)
if __name__ == "__main__":
cmds = (
[
"sh",
"-c",
"""echo "$SHELL"-stdout && sleep 1 && echo stderr 1>&2 && sleep 1 && echo done""",
],
[
"bash",
"-c",
"echo 'hello, Dave.' && sleep 1 && echo dave_err 1>&2 && sleep 1 && echo done",
],
[sys.executable, "-c", 'print("hello from python");import sys;sys.exit(2)'],
)
print(execute(*runners(cmds)))
It is unlikely that the example commands will work perfectly on your system, and it doesn't handle weird errors, but this code does demonstrate one way to run multiple subprocesses using asyncio and stream the output.
I've had good success with the asyncproc module, which deals nicely with the output from the processes. For example:
import os
from asynproc import Process
myProc = Process("myprogram.app")
while True:
# check to see if process has ended
poll = myProc.wait(os.WNOHANG)
if poll is not None:
break
# print any new output
out = myProc.read()
if out != "":
print out
Using pexpect with non-blocking readlines is another way to do this. Pexpect solves the deadlock problems, allows you to easily run the processes in the background, and gives easy ways to have callbacks when your process spits out predefined strings, and generally makes interacting with the process much easier.
Considering "I don't have to wait for it to return", one of the easiest solutions will be this:
subprocess.Popen( \
[path_to_executable, arg1, arg2, ... argN],
creationflags = subprocess.CREATE_NEW_CONSOLE,
).pid
But... From what I read this is not "the proper way to accomplish such a thing" because of security risks created by subprocess.CREATE_NEW_CONSOLE flag.
The key things that happen here is use of subprocess.CREATE_NEW_CONSOLE to create new console and .pid (returns process ID so that you could check program later on if you want to) so that not to wait for program to finish its job.
I have the same problem trying to connect to an 3270 terminal using the s3270 scripting software in Python. Now I'm solving the problem with an subclass of Process that I found here:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/440554/
And here is the sample taken from file:
def recv_some(p, t=.1, e=1, tr=5, stderr=0):
if tr < 1:
tr = 1
x = time.time()+t
y = []
r = ''
pr = p.recv
if stderr:
pr = p.recv_err
while time.time() < x or r:
r = pr()
if r is None:
if e:
raise Exception(message)
else:
break
elif r:
y.append(r)
else:
time.sleep(max((x-time.time())/tr, 0))
return ''.join(y)
def send_all(p, data):
while len(data):
sent = p.send(data)
if sent is None:
raise Exception(message)
data = buffer(data, sent)
if __name__ == '__main__':
if sys.platform == 'win32':
shell, commands, tail = ('cmd', ('dir /w', 'echo HELLO WORLD'), '\r\n')
else:
shell, commands, tail = ('sh', ('ls', 'echo HELLO WORLD'), '\n')
a = Popen(shell, stdin=PIPE, stdout=PIPE)
print recv_some(a),
for cmd in commands:
send_all(a, cmd + tail)
print recv_some(a),
send_all(a, 'exit' + tail)
print recv_some(a, e=0)
a.wait()
There are several answers here but none of them satisfied my below requirements:
I don't want to wait for command to finish or pollute my terminal with subprocess outputs.
I want to run bash script with redirects.
I want to support piping within my bash script (for example find ... | tar ...).
The only combination that satiesfies above requirements is:
subprocess.Popen(['./my_script.sh "arg1" > "redirect/path/to"'],
stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
shell=True)
I need to run a shell command asynchronously from a Python script. By this I mean that I want my Python script to continue running while the external command goes off and does whatever it needs to do.
I read this post:
Calling an external command in Python
I then went off and did some testing, and it looks like os.system() will do the job provided that I use & at the end of the command so that I don't have to wait for it to return. What I am wondering is if this is the proper way to accomplish such a thing? I tried commands.call() but it will not work for me because it blocks on the external command.
Please let me know if using os.system() for this is advisable or if I should try some other route.
subprocess.Popen does exactly what you want.
from subprocess import Popen
p = Popen(['watch', 'ls']) # something long running
# ... do other stuff while subprocess is running
p.terminate()
(Edit to complete the answer from comments)
The Popen instance can do various other things like you can poll() it to see if it is still running, and you can communicate() with it to send it data on stdin, and wait for it to terminate.
If you want to run many processes in parallel and then handle them when they yield results, you can use polling like in the following:
from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
import time
running_procs = [
Popen(['/usr/bin/my_cmd', '-i %s' % path], stdout=PIPE, stderr=PIPE)
for path in '/tmp/file0 /tmp/file1 /tmp/file2'.split()]
while running_procs:
for proc in running_procs:
retcode = proc.poll()
if retcode is not None: # Process finished.
running_procs.remove(proc)
break
else: # No process is done, wait a bit and check again.
time.sleep(.1)
continue
# Here, `proc` has finished with return code `retcode`
if retcode != 0:
"""Error handling."""
handle_results(proc.stdout)
The control flow there is a little bit convoluted because I'm trying to make it small -- you can refactor to your taste. :-)
This has the advantage of servicing the early-finishing requests first. If you call communicate on the first running process and that turns out to run the longest, the other running processes will have been sitting there idle when you could have been handling their results.
This is covered by Python 3 Subprocess Examples under "Wait for command to terminate asynchronously". Run this code using IPython or python -m asyncio:
import asyncio
proc = await asyncio.create_subprocess_exec(
'ls','-lha',
stdout=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE,
stderr=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE)
# do something else while ls is working
# if proc takes very long to complete, the CPUs are free to use cycles for
# other processes
stdout, stderr = await proc.communicate()
The process will start running as soon as the await asyncio.create_subprocess_exec(...) has completed. If it hasn't finished by the time you call await proc.communicate(), it will wait there in order to give you your output status. If it has finished, proc.communicate() will return immediately.
The gist here is similar to Terrels answer but I think Terrels answer appears to overcomplicate things.
See asyncio.create_subprocess_exec for more information.
What I am wondering is if this [os.system()] is the proper way to accomplish such a thing?
No. os.system() is not the proper way. That's why everyone says to use subprocess.
For more information, read http://docs.python.org/library/os.html#os.system
The subprocess module provides more
powerful facilities for spawning new
processes and retrieving their
results; using that module is
preferable to using this function. Use
the subprocess module. Check
especially the Replacing Older
Functions with the subprocess Module
section.
The accepted answer is very old.
I found a better modern answer here:
https://kevinmccarthy.org/2016/07/25/streaming-subprocess-stdin-and-stdout-with-asyncio-in-python/
and made some changes:
make it work on windows
make it work with multiple commands
import sys
import asyncio
if sys.platform == "win32":
asyncio.set_event_loop_policy(asyncio.WindowsProactorEventLoopPolicy())
async def _read_stream(stream, cb):
while True:
line = await stream.readline()
if line:
cb(line)
else:
break
async def _stream_subprocess(cmd, stdout_cb, stderr_cb):
try:
process = await asyncio.create_subprocess_exec(
*cmd, stdout=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE, stderr=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE
)
await asyncio.wait(
[
_read_stream(process.stdout, stdout_cb),
_read_stream(process.stderr, stderr_cb),
]
)
rc = await process.wait()
return process.pid, rc
except OSError as e:
# the program will hang if we let any exception propagate
return e
def execute(*aws):
""" run the given coroutines in an asyncio loop
returns a list containing the values returned from each coroutine.
"""
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
rc = loop.run_until_complete(asyncio.gather(*aws))
loop.close()
return rc
def printer(label):
def pr(*args, **kw):
print(label, *args, **kw)
return pr
def name_it(start=0, template="s{}"):
"""a simple generator for task names
"""
while True:
yield template.format(start)
start += 1
def runners(cmds):
"""
cmds is a list of commands to excecute as subprocesses
each item is a list appropriate for use by subprocess.call
"""
next_name = name_it().__next__
for cmd in cmds:
name = next_name()
out = printer(f"{name}.stdout")
err = printer(f"{name}.stderr")
yield _stream_subprocess(cmd, out, err)
if __name__ == "__main__":
cmds = (
[
"sh",
"-c",
"""echo "$SHELL"-stdout && sleep 1 && echo stderr 1>&2 && sleep 1 && echo done""",
],
[
"bash",
"-c",
"echo 'hello, Dave.' && sleep 1 && echo dave_err 1>&2 && sleep 1 && echo done",
],
[sys.executable, "-c", 'print("hello from python");import sys;sys.exit(2)'],
)
print(execute(*runners(cmds)))
It is unlikely that the example commands will work perfectly on your system, and it doesn't handle weird errors, but this code does demonstrate one way to run multiple subprocesses using asyncio and stream the output.
I've had good success with the asyncproc module, which deals nicely with the output from the processes. For example:
import os
from asynproc import Process
myProc = Process("myprogram.app")
while True:
# check to see if process has ended
poll = myProc.wait(os.WNOHANG)
if poll is not None:
break
# print any new output
out = myProc.read()
if out != "":
print out
Using pexpect with non-blocking readlines is another way to do this. Pexpect solves the deadlock problems, allows you to easily run the processes in the background, and gives easy ways to have callbacks when your process spits out predefined strings, and generally makes interacting with the process much easier.
Considering "I don't have to wait for it to return", one of the easiest solutions will be this:
subprocess.Popen( \
[path_to_executable, arg1, arg2, ... argN],
creationflags = subprocess.CREATE_NEW_CONSOLE,
).pid
But... From what I read this is not "the proper way to accomplish such a thing" because of security risks created by subprocess.CREATE_NEW_CONSOLE flag.
The key things that happen here is use of subprocess.CREATE_NEW_CONSOLE to create new console and .pid (returns process ID so that you could check program later on if you want to) so that not to wait for program to finish its job.
I have the same problem trying to connect to an 3270 terminal using the s3270 scripting software in Python. Now I'm solving the problem with an subclass of Process that I found here:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/440554/
And here is the sample taken from file:
def recv_some(p, t=.1, e=1, tr=5, stderr=0):
if tr < 1:
tr = 1
x = time.time()+t
y = []
r = ''
pr = p.recv
if stderr:
pr = p.recv_err
while time.time() < x or r:
r = pr()
if r is None:
if e:
raise Exception(message)
else:
break
elif r:
y.append(r)
else:
time.sleep(max((x-time.time())/tr, 0))
return ''.join(y)
def send_all(p, data):
while len(data):
sent = p.send(data)
if sent is None:
raise Exception(message)
data = buffer(data, sent)
if __name__ == '__main__':
if sys.platform == 'win32':
shell, commands, tail = ('cmd', ('dir /w', 'echo HELLO WORLD'), '\r\n')
else:
shell, commands, tail = ('sh', ('ls', 'echo HELLO WORLD'), '\n')
a = Popen(shell, stdin=PIPE, stdout=PIPE)
print recv_some(a),
for cmd in commands:
send_all(a, cmd + tail)
print recv_some(a),
send_all(a, 'exit' + tail)
print recv_some(a, e=0)
a.wait()
There are several answers here but none of them satisfied my below requirements:
I don't want to wait for command to finish or pollute my terminal with subprocess outputs.
I want to run bash script with redirects.
I want to support piping within my bash script (for example find ... | tar ...).
The only combination that satiesfies above requirements is:
subprocess.Popen(['./my_script.sh "arg1" > "redirect/path/to"'],
stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
shell=True)
I need to run a shell command asynchronously from a Python script. By this I mean that I want my Python script to continue running while the external command goes off and does whatever it needs to do.
I read this post:
Calling an external command in Python
I then went off and did some testing, and it looks like os.system() will do the job provided that I use & at the end of the command so that I don't have to wait for it to return. What I am wondering is if this is the proper way to accomplish such a thing? I tried commands.call() but it will not work for me because it blocks on the external command.
Please let me know if using os.system() for this is advisable or if I should try some other route.
subprocess.Popen does exactly what you want.
from subprocess import Popen
p = Popen(['watch', 'ls']) # something long running
# ... do other stuff while subprocess is running
p.terminate()
(Edit to complete the answer from comments)
The Popen instance can do various other things like you can poll() it to see if it is still running, and you can communicate() with it to send it data on stdin, and wait for it to terminate.
If you want to run many processes in parallel and then handle them when they yield results, you can use polling like in the following:
from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
import time
running_procs = [
Popen(['/usr/bin/my_cmd', '-i %s' % path], stdout=PIPE, stderr=PIPE)
for path in '/tmp/file0 /tmp/file1 /tmp/file2'.split()]
while running_procs:
for proc in running_procs:
retcode = proc.poll()
if retcode is not None: # Process finished.
running_procs.remove(proc)
break
else: # No process is done, wait a bit and check again.
time.sleep(.1)
continue
# Here, `proc` has finished with return code `retcode`
if retcode != 0:
"""Error handling."""
handle_results(proc.stdout)
The control flow there is a little bit convoluted because I'm trying to make it small -- you can refactor to your taste. :-)
This has the advantage of servicing the early-finishing requests first. If you call communicate on the first running process and that turns out to run the longest, the other running processes will have been sitting there idle when you could have been handling their results.
This is covered by Python 3 Subprocess Examples under "Wait for command to terminate asynchronously". Run this code using IPython or python -m asyncio:
import asyncio
proc = await asyncio.create_subprocess_exec(
'ls','-lha',
stdout=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE,
stderr=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE)
# do something else while ls is working
# if proc takes very long to complete, the CPUs are free to use cycles for
# other processes
stdout, stderr = await proc.communicate()
The process will start running as soon as the await asyncio.create_subprocess_exec(...) has completed. If it hasn't finished by the time you call await proc.communicate(), it will wait there in order to give you your output status. If it has finished, proc.communicate() will return immediately.
The gist here is similar to Terrels answer but I think Terrels answer appears to overcomplicate things.
See asyncio.create_subprocess_exec for more information.
What I am wondering is if this [os.system()] is the proper way to accomplish such a thing?
No. os.system() is not the proper way. That's why everyone says to use subprocess.
For more information, read http://docs.python.org/library/os.html#os.system
The subprocess module provides more
powerful facilities for spawning new
processes and retrieving their
results; using that module is
preferable to using this function. Use
the subprocess module. Check
especially the Replacing Older
Functions with the subprocess Module
section.
The accepted answer is very old.
I found a better modern answer here:
https://kevinmccarthy.org/2016/07/25/streaming-subprocess-stdin-and-stdout-with-asyncio-in-python/
and made some changes:
make it work on windows
make it work with multiple commands
import sys
import asyncio
if sys.platform == "win32":
asyncio.set_event_loop_policy(asyncio.WindowsProactorEventLoopPolicy())
async def _read_stream(stream, cb):
while True:
line = await stream.readline()
if line:
cb(line)
else:
break
async def _stream_subprocess(cmd, stdout_cb, stderr_cb):
try:
process = await asyncio.create_subprocess_exec(
*cmd, stdout=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE, stderr=asyncio.subprocess.PIPE
)
await asyncio.wait(
[
_read_stream(process.stdout, stdout_cb),
_read_stream(process.stderr, stderr_cb),
]
)
rc = await process.wait()
return process.pid, rc
except OSError as e:
# the program will hang if we let any exception propagate
return e
def execute(*aws):
""" run the given coroutines in an asyncio loop
returns a list containing the values returned from each coroutine.
"""
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
rc = loop.run_until_complete(asyncio.gather(*aws))
loop.close()
return rc
def printer(label):
def pr(*args, **kw):
print(label, *args, **kw)
return pr
def name_it(start=0, template="s{}"):
"""a simple generator for task names
"""
while True:
yield template.format(start)
start += 1
def runners(cmds):
"""
cmds is a list of commands to excecute as subprocesses
each item is a list appropriate for use by subprocess.call
"""
next_name = name_it().__next__
for cmd in cmds:
name = next_name()
out = printer(f"{name}.stdout")
err = printer(f"{name}.stderr")
yield _stream_subprocess(cmd, out, err)
if __name__ == "__main__":
cmds = (
[
"sh",
"-c",
"""echo "$SHELL"-stdout && sleep 1 && echo stderr 1>&2 && sleep 1 && echo done""",
],
[
"bash",
"-c",
"echo 'hello, Dave.' && sleep 1 && echo dave_err 1>&2 && sleep 1 && echo done",
],
[sys.executable, "-c", 'print("hello from python");import sys;sys.exit(2)'],
)
print(execute(*runners(cmds)))
It is unlikely that the example commands will work perfectly on your system, and it doesn't handle weird errors, but this code does demonstrate one way to run multiple subprocesses using asyncio and stream the output.
I've had good success with the asyncproc module, which deals nicely with the output from the processes. For example:
import os
from asynproc import Process
myProc = Process("myprogram.app")
while True:
# check to see if process has ended
poll = myProc.wait(os.WNOHANG)
if poll is not None:
break
# print any new output
out = myProc.read()
if out != "":
print out
Using pexpect with non-blocking readlines is another way to do this. Pexpect solves the deadlock problems, allows you to easily run the processes in the background, and gives easy ways to have callbacks when your process spits out predefined strings, and generally makes interacting with the process much easier.
Considering "I don't have to wait for it to return", one of the easiest solutions will be this:
subprocess.Popen( \
[path_to_executable, arg1, arg2, ... argN],
creationflags = subprocess.CREATE_NEW_CONSOLE,
).pid
But... From what I read this is not "the proper way to accomplish such a thing" because of security risks created by subprocess.CREATE_NEW_CONSOLE flag.
The key things that happen here is use of subprocess.CREATE_NEW_CONSOLE to create new console and .pid (returns process ID so that you could check program later on if you want to) so that not to wait for program to finish its job.
I have the same problem trying to connect to an 3270 terminal using the s3270 scripting software in Python. Now I'm solving the problem with an subclass of Process that I found here:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/440554/
And here is the sample taken from file:
def recv_some(p, t=.1, e=1, tr=5, stderr=0):
if tr < 1:
tr = 1
x = time.time()+t
y = []
r = ''
pr = p.recv
if stderr:
pr = p.recv_err
while time.time() < x or r:
r = pr()
if r is None:
if e:
raise Exception(message)
else:
break
elif r:
y.append(r)
else:
time.sleep(max((x-time.time())/tr, 0))
return ''.join(y)
def send_all(p, data):
while len(data):
sent = p.send(data)
if sent is None:
raise Exception(message)
data = buffer(data, sent)
if __name__ == '__main__':
if sys.platform == 'win32':
shell, commands, tail = ('cmd', ('dir /w', 'echo HELLO WORLD'), '\r\n')
else:
shell, commands, tail = ('sh', ('ls', 'echo HELLO WORLD'), '\n')
a = Popen(shell, stdin=PIPE, stdout=PIPE)
print recv_some(a),
for cmd in commands:
send_all(a, cmd + tail)
print recv_some(a),
send_all(a, 'exit' + tail)
print recv_some(a, e=0)
a.wait()
There are several answers here but none of them satisfied my below requirements:
I don't want to wait for command to finish or pollute my terminal with subprocess outputs.
I want to run bash script with redirects.
I want to support piping within my bash script (for example find ... | tar ...).
The only combination that satiesfies above requirements is:
subprocess.Popen(['./my_script.sh "arg1" > "redirect/path/to"'],
stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
shell=True)
I am trying to open a subprocess but have it be detached from the parent script that called it. Right now if I call subprocess.popen and the parent script crashes the subprocess dies as well.
I know there are a couple of options for windows but I have not found anything for *nix.
I also don't need to call this using subprocess. All I need is to be able to cal another process detached and get the pid.
With linux, it's no issue at all. Just Popen(). For example, here is a little dying_demon.py
#!/usr/bin/python -u
from time import sleep
from subprocess import Popen
print Popen(["python", "-u", "child.py"]).pid
i = 0
while True:
i += 1
print "demon: %d" % i
sleep(1)
if i == 3:
i = hurz # exception
spinning off a child.py
#!/usr/bin/python -u
from time import sleep
i = 0
while True:
i += 1
print "child: %d" % i
sleep(1)
if i == 20:
break
The child continues to count (to the console), while the demon is dying by exception.
I think this should do the trick: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3143/#reference-implementation
You can create daemon which will call your subprocess, passing detach_process=True.
This might do what you want:
def cmd_detach(*command, **kwargs) -> subprocess.CompletedProcess:
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62521658/python-subprocess-detach-a-process
# if using with ffmpeg remember to run it with `-nostdin`
stdout = os.open(os.devnull, os.O_WRONLY)
stderr = os.open(os.devnull, os.O_WRONLY)
stdin = os.open(os.devnull, os.O_RDONLY)
command = conform(command)
if command[0] in ["fish", "bash"]:
import shlex
command = command[0:2] + [shlex.join(command[2:])]
subprocess.Popen(command, stdin=stdin, stdout=stdout, stderr=stderr, close_fds=True, start_new_session=True, **kwargs)
return subprocess.CompletedProcess(command, 0, "Detached command is async")
On Windows you might need
CREATE_NEW_PROCESS_GROUP = 0x00000200
DETACHED_PROCESS = 0x00000008
creationflags=DETACHED_PROCESS | CREATE_NEW_PROCESS_GROUP
instead of start_new_session=True
I managed to get it working by doing the following using python-daemon:
process = subprocess.Popen(["python", "-u", "Child.py"])
time.sleep(2)
process.kill()
Then in Child.py:
with daemon.DaemonContext():
print("Child Started")
time.sleep(30)
print "Done"
exit()
I do process.kill() because otherwise it creates a defunct python process. The main problem I have now is that the PID that popen returns does not match the final pid of the process. I can get by this by adding a function in Child.py to update a database with the pid.
Let me know if there is something that I am missing or if this is an ok method of doing this.
fork the subprocs using the NOHUP option
I have a program, P1, which I need to run about 24*20000 times with different inputs. The problem is the P1 hangs and I should force it to quite manually (kill). My first solution was writing a python script to call P1 and passing the proper input and receiving the output using popen and communicate. But due to the nature of communicate which waits for the output, I can not kill the process as long as it is waiting for the response. I am on Windows.
I tried to use multiprocess function, but it only runs the P1 and failed in sending the input to it. I am suspicious about not using pipes in popen and tried a little bit but I guess I can't receive the output from P1.
Any ideas?
# This code run XLE and pass the intended input to it automatically
def startExe(programPath, programArgStr):
p = subprocess.Popen(programPath,stdout=subprocess.PIPE,stdin=subprocess.PIPE) p.stdin.write(programArgStr)
p.communicate()[0]
# Need to kill the process if it takes longer than it should here
def main(folder):
..
#loop
programArgStr = "create-parser"+path1+";cd "+ path2+"/s"+ command(counter) +";exit"
startExe(path, programArgStr)
..
As you can see if P1 can finish the given task successfully it can exit itself, using the exit commands passed to it!
If you're not required to use Python, you might consider using Cygwin Bash along with the timeout(1) command to run a command with a timeout. However, since Cygwin's implementation of fork() is not very fast and you're creating an enormous number of processes, you'll likely have an enormous overhead of just creating processes (I don't know if the native Windows version of Python is any better in this regard).
Alternatively, if you have the source code to P1, why don't you just modify it so that it can perform multiple iterations of whatever it is that it does in one invocation? That way, you don't have to deal with creating and killing 480,000 processes, which will make a huge difference if the amount of work that each invocation does is small.
When you call popen, you can specify either a pipe or file descriptor to accept stdout from the process:
Popen(args, bufsize=0, executable=None, stdin=None, stdout=None, stderr=None, preexec_fn=None, close_fds=False, shell=False, cwd=None, env=None, universal_newlines=False, startupinfo=None, creationflags=0)
You can then monitor the file/pipe you pass to popen, and if nothing is written, kill the process.
More info on the popen args is in the python docs.
Rather than using p.communicate, try just looping through the lines of output:
while True:
line = p.stdout.readline()
if not line:
break
print ">>> " + line.rstrip()
How about this approach?
from threading import Thread
def main(input):
#your actual program, modified to take input as argument
queue = ['Your inputs stored here. Even better to make it to be a generator']
class Runner(Thread):
def __init__(self):
Thread.__init__(self)
def run(self):
while len(queue)>0:
input = queue.pop()
main(input)
return True
#Use 24 threads
for thread in xrange(24):
Runner().start()
#You may also join threads at the end.
Of course this approach would introduce some vulnerabilities, like "two threads pops queue list at same time", but I never encountered it in real-life.
I solved my problem by editing current code and putting the killer code in a separate file.
to do that I add a line to write PID of the newly created process in a file.
#//Should come before p.commiunicate
WriteStatus(str(p.pid) + "***" + str(gmtime().tm_hour) + "***" + str(gmtime().tm_min))
p.communicate()[0]
And the process monitor executed seperately and checks every 2 mins to see if the processes listed in the file are still active. If yes kill them and remove their ID.
def KillProcess(pid):
subprocess.Popen("TASKKILL /PID "+ str(pid) + " /F /T" , shell=True)
subprocess.Popen("TASKKILL /im WerFault.exe /F /T" , shell=True)
print "kill"
def ReadStatus(filePath):
print "Checking" + filePath
try:
status = open(mainPath+filePath, 'r').readline()
except:
print "file removed" + filePath
return 0
if len(status) >0:
info = status.split("***")
time = [gmtime().tm_hour, gmtime().tm_min]
print time
# Time deifferences
difHour = time[0]- int(info[1])
if difHour == 0: # in the same hour
difMin = time[1]- int(info[2])
else:
difMin = 60 - int(info[2]) + time[1]
if difMin > 2:
try:
open(mainPath+filePath, 'w').write("")
KillProcess(info[0])
except:
pass
return 1
def monitor():
# Read all the files
listFiles = os.listdir(mainPath)
while len(listFiles)>0:
#GO and check the contents
for file in listFiles:
#Open the file and Calculate if the process should be killed or not
pid = ReadStatus(file)
#Update listFiles due to remove of file after finishing the process '
# of each folder is done
listFiles = os.listdir(mainPath)
for i in range(0,4):
time.sleep(30) #waits 30 sec
subprocess.Popen("TASKKILL /im WerFault.exe /F /T" , shell=True)
#to indicate the job is done
return 1