We Keep Coding

How to allow a class's variables to be modified concurrently by multiple threads

I have a class (MyClass) which contains a queue (self.msg_queue) of actions that need to be run and I have multiple sources of input that can add tasks to the queue.
Right now I have three functions that I want to run concurrently:
MyClass.get_input_from_user()
Creates a window in tkinter that has the user fill out information and when the user presses submit it pushes that message onto the queue.
MyClass.get_input_from_server()
Checks the server for a message, reads the message, and then puts it onto the queue. This method uses functions from MyClass's parent class.
MyClass.execute_next_item_on_the_queue()
Pops a message off of the queue and then acts upon it. It is dependent on what the message is, but each message corresponds to some method in MyClass or its parent which gets run according to a big decision tree.
Process description:
After the class has joined the network, I have it spawn three threads (one for each of the above functions). Each threaded function adds items from the queue with the syntax "self.msg_queue.put(message)" and removes items from the queue with "self.msg_queue.get_nowait()".
Problem description:
The issue I am having is that it seems that each thread is modifying its own queue object (they are not sharing the queue, msg_queue, of the class of which they, the functions, are all members).
I am not familiar enough with Multiprocessing to know what the important error messages are; however, it is stating that it cannot pickle a weakref object (it gives no indication of which object is the weakref object), and that within the queue.put() call the line "self._sem.acquire(block, timeout) yields a '[WinError 5] Access is denied'" error. Would it be safe to assume that this failure in the queue's reference not copying over properly?
[I am using Python 3.7.2 and the Multiprocessing package's Process and Queue]
[I have seen multiple Q/As about having threads shuttle information between classes--create a master harness that generates a queue and then pass that queue as an argument to each thread. If the functions didn't have to use other functions from MyClass I could see adapting this strategy by having those functions take in a queue and use a local variable rather than class variables.]
[I am fairly confident that this error is not the result of passing my queue to the tkinter object as my unit tests on how my GUI modifies its caller's queue work fine]
Below is a minimal reproducible example for the queue's error:
from multiprocessing import Queue
from multiprocessing import Process
import queue
import time
class MyTest:
def __init__(self):
self.my_q = Queue()
self.counter = 0
def input_function_A(self):
while True:
self.my_q.put(self.counter)
self.counter = self.counter + 1
time.sleep(0.2)
def input_function_B(self):
while True:
self.counter = 0
self.my_q.put(self.counter)
time.sleep(1)
def output_function(self):
while True:
try:
var = self.my_q.get_nowait()
except queue.Empty:
var = -1
except:
break
print(var)
time.sleep(1)
def run(self):
process_A = Process(target=self.input_function_A)
process_B = Process(target=self.input_function_B)
process_C = Process(target=self.output_function)
process_A.start()
process_B.start()
process_C.start()
# without this it generates the WinError:
# with this it still behaves as if the two input functions do not modify the queue
process_C.join()
if __name__ == '__main__':
test = MyTest()
test.run()

Indeed - these are not "threads" - these are "processes" - while if you were using multithreading, and not multiprocessing, the self.my_q instance would be the same object, placed at the same memory space on the computer,
multiprocessing does a fork of the process, and any data in the original process (the one in execution in the "run" call) will be duplicated when it is used - so, each subprocess will see its own "Queue" instance, unrelated to the others.
The correct way to have various process share a multiprocessing.Queue object is to pass it as a parameter to the target methods. The simpler way to reorganize your code so that it works is thus:
from multiprocessing import Queue
from multiprocessing import Process
import queue
import time
class MyTest:
def __init__(self):
self.my_q = Queue()
self.counter = 0
def input_function_A(self, queue):
while True:
queue.put(self.counter)
self.counter = self.counter + 1
time.sleep(0.2)
def input_function_B(self, queue):
while True:
self.counter = 0
queue.put(self.counter)
time.sleep(1)
def output_function(self, queue):
while True:
try:
var = queue.get_nowait()
except queue.Empty:
var = -1
except:
break
print(var)
time.sleep(1)
def run(self):
process_A = Process(target=self.input_function_A, args=(queue,))
process_B = Process(target=self.input_function_B, args=(queue,))
process_C = Process(target=self.output_function, args=(queue,))
process_A.start()
process_B.start()
process_C.start()
# without this it generates the WinError:
# with this it still behaves as if the two input functions do not modify the queue
process_C.join()
if __name__ == '__main__':
test = MyTest()
test.run()
As you can see, since your class is not actually sharing any data through the instance's attributes, this "class" design does not make much sense for your application - but for grouping the different workers in the same code block.
It would be possible to have a magic-multiprocess-class that would have some internal method to actually start the worker-methods and share the Queue instance - so if you have a lot of those in a project, there would be a lot less boilerplate.
Something along:
from multiprocessing import Queue
from multiprocessing import Process
import time
class MPWorkerBase:
def __init__(self, *args, **kw):
self.queue = None
self.is_parent_process = False
self.is_child_process = False
self.processes = []
# ensure this can be used as a colaborative mixin
super().__init__(*args, **kw)
def run(self):
if self.is_parent_process or self.is_child_process:
# workers already initialized
return
self.queue = Queue()
processes = []
cls = self.__class__
for name in dir(cls):
method = getattr(cls, name)
if callable(method) and getattr(method, "_MP_worker", False):
process = Process(target=self._start_worker, args=(self.queue, name))
self.processes.append(process)
process.start()
# Setting these attributes here ensure the child processes have the initial values for them.
self.is_parent_process = True
self.processes = processes
def _start_worker(self, queue, method_name):
# this method is called in a new spawned process - attribute
# changes here no longer reflect attributes on the
# object in the initial process
# overwrite queue in this process with the queue object sent over the wire:
self.queue = queue
self.is_child_process = True
# call the worker method
getattr(self, method_name)()
def __del__(self):
for process in self.processes:
process.join()
def worker(func):
"""decorator to mark a method as a worker that should
run in its own subprocess
"""
func._MP_worker = True
return func
class MyTest(MPWorkerBase):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
self.counter = 0
#worker
def input_function_A(self):
while True:
self.queue.put(self.counter)
self.counter = self.counter + 1
time.sleep(0.2)
#worker
def input_function_B(self):
while True:
self.counter = 0
self.queue.put(self.counter)
time.sleep(1)
#worker
def output_function(self):
while True:
try:
var = self.queue.get_nowait()
except queue.Empty:
var = -1
except:
break
print(var)
time.sleep(1)
if __name__ == '__main__':
test = MyTest()
test.run()

Apply a method to a list of objects in parallel using multi-processing

I have created a class with a number of methods. One of the methods is very time consuming, my_process, and I'd like to do that method in parallel. I came across Python Multiprocessing - apply class method to a list of objects but I'm not sure how to apply it to my problem, and what effect it will have on the other methods of my class.
class MyClass():
def __init__(self, input):
self.input = input
self.result = int
def my_process(self, multiply_by, add_to):
self.result = self.input * multiply_by
self._my_sub_process(add_to)
return self.result
def _my_sub_process(self, add_to):
self.result += add_to
list_of_numbers = range(0, 5)
list_of_objects = [MyClass(i) for i in list_of_numbers]
list_of_results = [obj.my_process(100, 1) for obj in list_of_objects] # multi-process this for-loop
print list_of_numbers
print list_of_results
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
[1, 101, 201, 301, 401]

I'm going to go against the grain here, and suggest sticking to the simplest thing that could possibly work ;-) That is, Pool.map()-like functions are ideal for this, but are restricted to passing a single argument. Rather than make heroic efforts to worm around that, simply write a helper function that only needs a single argument: a tuple. Then it's all easy and clear.
Here's a complete program taking that approach, which prints what you want under Python 2, and regardless of OS:
class MyClass():
def __init__(self, input):
self.input = input
self.result = int
def my_process(self, multiply_by, add_to):
self.result = self.input * multiply_by
self._my_sub_process(add_to)
return self.result
def _my_sub_process(self, add_to):
self.result += add_to
import multiprocessing as mp
NUM_CORE = 4 # set to the number of cores you want to use
def worker(arg):
obj, m, a = arg
return obj.my_process(m, a)
if __name__ == "__main__":
list_of_numbers = range(0, 5)
list_of_objects = [MyClass(i) for i in list_of_numbers]
pool = mp.Pool(NUM_CORE)
list_of_results = pool.map(worker, ((obj, 100, 1) for obj in list_of_objects))
pool.close()
pool.join()
print list_of_numbers
print list_of_results
A big of magic
I should note there are many advantages to taking the very simple approach I suggest. Beyond that it "just works" on Pythons 2 and 3, requires no changes to your classes, and is easy to understand, it also plays nice with all of the Pool methods.
However, if you have multiple methods you want to run in parallel, it can get a bit annoying to write a tiny worker function for each. So here's a tiny bit of "magic" to worm around that. Change worker() like so:
def worker(arg):
obj, methname = arg[:2]
return getattr(obj, methname)(*arg[2:])
Now a single worker function suffices for any number of methods, with any number of arguments. In your specific case, just change one line to match:
list_of_results = pool.map(worker, ((obj, "my_process", 100, 1) for obj in list_of_objects))
More-or-less obvious generalizations can also cater to methods with keyword arguments. But, in real life, I usually stick to the original suggestion. At some point catering to generalizations does more harm than good. Then again, I like obvious things ;-)

If your class is not "huge", I think process oriented is better.
Pool in multiprocessing is suggested.
This is the tutorial -> https://docs.python.org/2/library/multiprocessing.html#using-a-pool-of-workers
Then seperate the add_to from my_process since they are quick and you can wait util the end of the last process.
def my_process(input, multiby):
return xxxx
def add_to(result,a_list):
xxx
p = Pool(5)
res = []
for i in range(10):
res.append(p.apply_async(my_process, (i,5)))
p.join() # wait for the end of the last process
for i in range(10):
print res[i].get()

Generally the easiest way to run the same calculation in parallel is the map method of a multiprocessing.Pool (or the as_completed function from concurrent.futures in Python 3).
However, the map method applies a function that only takes one argument to an iterable of data using multiple processes.
So this function cannot be a normal method, because that requires at least two arguments; it must also include self! It could be a staticmethod, however. See also this answer for a more in-depth explanation.

Based on the answer of Python Multiprocessing - apply class method to a list of objects and your code:
add MyClass object into simulation object
class simulation(multiprocessing.Process):
def __init__(self, id, worker, *args, **kwargs):
# must call this before anything else
multiprocessing.Process.__init__(self)
self.id = id
self.worker = worker
self.args = args
self.kwargs = kwargs
sys.stdout.write('[%d] created\n' % (self.id))
run what you want in run function
def run(self):
sys.stdout.write('[%d] running ... process id: %s\n' % (self.id, os.getpid()))
self.worker.my_process(*self.args, **self.kwargs)
sys.stdout.write('[%d] completed\n' % (self.id))
Try this:
list_of_numbers = range(0, 5)
list_of_objects = [MyClass(i) for i in list_of_numbers]
list_of_sim = [simulation(id=k, worker=obj, multiply_by=100*k, add_to=10*k) \
for k, obj in enumerate(list_of_objects)]
for sim in list_of_sim:
sim.start()

If you don't absolutely need to stick with Multiprocessing module then,
it can easily achieved using concurrents.futures library
here's the example code:
from concurrent.futures.thread import ThreadPoolExecutor, wait
MAX_WORKERS = 20
class MyClass():
def __init__(self, input):
self.input = input
self.result = int
def my_process(self, multiply_by, add_to):
self.result = self.input * multiply_by
self._my_sub_process(add_to)
return self.result
def _my_sub_process(self, add_to):
self.result += add_to
list_of_numbers = range(0, 5)
list_of_objects = [MyClass(i) for i in list_of_numbers]
With ThreadPoolExecutor(MAX_WORKERS) as executor:
for obj in list_of_objects:
executor.submit(obj.my_process, 100, 1).add_done_callback(on_finish)
def on_finish(future):
result = future.result() # do stuff with your result
here executor returns future for every task it submits. keep in mind that if you use add_done_callback() finished task from thread returns to the main thread (which would block your main thread) if you really want true parallelism then you should wait for future objects separately. here's the code snippet for that.
futures = []
with ThreadPoolExecutor(MAX_WORKERS) as executor:
for objin list_of_objects:
futures.append(executor.submit(obj.my_process, 100, 1))
wait(futures)
for succeded, failed in futures:
# work with your result here
if succeded:
print (succeeeded.result())
if failed:
print (failed.result())
hope this helps.

using python multiprocessing package inside a qgis plugin code

I spent quite a bit of time looking on how to use the multiprocessing package, but couldn't find anything on how to use it inside a plugin in QGIS. I am developing a plugin that does some optimization for several elements. I would like to parallelize it.
I found a useful link on multi-threading inside a python plugin (http://snorf.net/blog/2013/12/07/multithreading-in-qgis-python-plugins/), but nothing on using the multiprocessing module, which might be easier?
I have been trying with a very basic example. I am only showing the run function from the plugin here:
def run(self):
"""Run method that performs all the real work"""
# show the dialog
self.dlg.show()
# Run the dialog event loop
result = self.dlg.exec_()
# See if OK was pressed and run code
if result:
#Get number of cores
nProcs = mp.cpu_count()
#Start a Process
p = mp.Pool(nProcs)
#Define function
def cube(x):
return x**3
#Run parallel
results = p.map(cube, range(1,7))
When I run this code from the plugin in QGIS, it opens several QGIS windows, which then return errors (can't load layers, etc.). What am I missing? Do I need to start a worker first on another thread and then use multiprocessing there? Or would we use another function from multiprocessing?
Please let me know if the question needs edits. I am working under windows 7, using QGIS 2.10.
Thanks,
UPDATE
I created a worker class to implement the function and sent it to a new thread, but I get the same problem when I use multiprocessing in that thread.
The class I created is as follows:
class Worker(QObject):
'''Example worker'''
def __init__(self, result_queue, f, attr=[], repet=None, nbCores=None):
QObject.__init__(self)
if not hasattr(f, '__call__'):
#Check if not a function
raise TypeError('Worker expected a function as second argument')
if not isinstance(attr, list) and not repet==None:
#Check if not a list if there is a repet command
raise TypeError('Input problem:\nThe arguments for the function should be in a list if repet is provided')
if not all(isinstance(elem, list) for elem in attr) and repet==None and len(inspect.getargspec(f).args) > 1:
#Check if not a list of lists if there isn't a repet command
raise TypeError('Input problem:\nThe arguments for the function should be a list of lists if repet is not provided')
if not repet == None and (not isinstance(repet, int) or repet == 0):
#Check that provided an integer greater than 0
raise TypeError('If provided, repet should be None or a strictly positive integer')
self.result_queue = result_queue
self.f = f
self.attr = attr
self.repet = repet
self.nbCores = nbCores
if self.nbCores == None:
self.nbCores = mp.cpu_count() - 1
def fStar(self, arg):
"""Convert the function to taking a list as arguments"""
return self.f(*arg)
def run(self):
ret = None
try:
if self.repet == 1:
# estimates the function based on provided arguments
ret = self.f(*self.attr) #The star unpacks the list into attributes
else:
pool = mp.Pool(processes=self.nbCores)
if self.repet > 1:
ret = pool.map(self.fStar, itools.repeat(self.attr,self.repet))
elif self.repet == None:
ret = pool.map(self.fStar, self.attr)
pool.close()
pool.join()
except Exception, e:
#I can't pass an exception, it makes qgis bug
pass
self.result_queue.put(ret) #Pass the result to the queue
finished = pyqtSignal(object)
error = pyqtSignal(Exception, basestring)
I start the worker and send it to a new thread using the following function:
def startWorker(f, attr, repet=None, nbCores=None):
#Create a result queue
result_queue = queue.Queue()
# create a new worker instance
worker = Worker(result_queue, f, attr, repet, nbCores)
# start the worker in a new thread
thread = QThread()
worker.moveToThread(thread)
thread.started.connect(worker.run)
thread.start()
#Clean up when the thread is finished
worker.deleteLater()
thread.quit()
thread.wait()
thread.deleteLater()
#Export the result to the queue
res = []
while not result_queue.empty():
r = result_queue.get()
if r is None:
continue
res.append(r)
return res
As in my initial question, I just replaced results = p.map(cube, range(1,7)) by calling the startWorker function
Please let me know if you have any idea how to make this work. I implemented the work in multiple threads, but it would be much faster to use several cores...

Shared state in multiprocessing Processes

Please consider this code:
import time
from multiprocessing import Process
class Host(object):
def __init__(self):
self.id = None
def callback(self):
print "self.id = %s" % self.id
def bind(self, event_source):
event_source.callback = self.callback
class Event(object):
def __init__(self):
self.callback = None
def trigger(self):
self.callback()
h = Host()
h.id = "A"
e = Event()
h.bind(e)
e.trigger()
def delayed_trigger(f, delay):
time.sleep(delay)
f()
p = Process(target = delayed_trigger, args = (e.trigger, 3,))
p.start()
h.id = "B"
e.trigger()
This gives in output
self.id = A
self.id = B
self.id = A
However, I expected it to give
self.id = A
self.id = B
self.id = B
..because the h.id was already changed to "B" by the time the trigger method was called.
It seems that a copy of host instance is created at the moment when the separate Process is started, so the changes in the original host do not influence that copy.
In my project (more elaborate, of course), the host instance fields are altered time to time, and it is important that the events that are triggered by the code running in a separate process, have access to those changes.

multiprocessing runs stuff in separate processes. It is almost inconceivable that things are not copied as they're sent, as sharing stuff between processes requires shared memory or communication.
In fact, if you peruse the module, you can see the amount of effort it takes to actually share anything between the processes after the diverge, either through explicit communication, or through explicitly-shared objects (which are of a very limited subset of the language, and have to be managed by a Manager).

How to properly set up multiprocessing proxy objects for objects that already exist

I'm trying to share an existing object across multiple processing using the proxy methods described here. My multiprocessing idiom is the worker/queue setup, modeled after the 4th example here.
The code needs to do some calculations on data that are stored in rather large files on disk. I have a class that encapsulates all the I/O interactions, and once it has read a file from disk, it saves the data in memory for the next time a task needs to use the same data (which happens often).
I thought I had everything working from reading the examples linked to above. Here is a mock up of the code that just uses numpy random arrays to model the disk I/O:
import numpy
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue, current_process, Lock
from multiprocessing.managers import BaseManager
nfiles = 200
njobs = 1000
class BigFiles:
def __init__(self, nfiles):
# Start out with nothing read in.
self.data = [ None for i in range(nfiles) ]
# Use a lock to make sure only one process is reading from disk at a time.
self.lock = Lock()
def access(self, i):
# Get the data for a particular file
# In my real application, this function reads in files from disk.
# Here I mock it up with random numpy arrays.
if self.data[i] is None:
with self.lock:
self.data[i] = numpy.random.rand(1024,1024)
return self.data[i]
def summary(self):
return 'BigFiles: %d, %d Storing %d of %d files in memory'%(
id(self),id(self.data),
(len(self.data) - self.data.count(None)),
len(self.data) )
# I'm using a worker/queue setup for the multprocessing:
def worker(input, output):
proc = current_process().name
for job in iter(input.get, 'STOP'):
(big_files, i, ifile) = job
data = big_files.access(ifile)
# Do some calculations on the data
answer = numpy.var(data)
msg = '%s, job %d'%(proc, i)
msg += '\n Answer for file %d = %f'%(ifile, answer)
msg += '\n ' + big_files.summary()
output.put(msg)
# A class that returns an existing file when called.
# This is my attempted workaround for the fact that Manager.register needs a callable.
class ObjectGetter:
def __init__(self, obj):
self.obj = obj
def __call__(self):
return self.obj
def main():
# Prior to the place where I want to do the multprocessing,
# I already have a BigFiles object, which might have some data already read in.
# (Here I start it out empty.)
big_files = BigFiles(nfiles)
print 'Initial big_files.summary = ',big_files.summary()
# My attempt at making a proxy class to pass big_files to the workers
class BigFileManager(BaseManager):
pass
getter = ObjectGetter(big_files)
BigFileManager.register('big_files', callable = getter)
manager = BigFileManager()
manager.start()
# Set up the jobs:
task_queue = Queue()
for i in range(njobs):
ifile = numpy.random.randint(0, nfiles)
big_files_proxy = manager.big_files()
task_queue.put( (big_files_proxy, i, ifile) )
# Set up the workers
nproc = 12
done_queue = Queue()
process_list = []
for j in range(nproc):
p = Process(target=worker, args=(task_queue, done_queue))
p.start()
process_list.append(p)
task_queue.put('STOP')
# Log the results
for i in range(njobs):
msg = done_queue.get()
print msg
print 'Finished all jobs'
print 'big_files.summary = ',big_files.summary()
# Shut down the workers
for j in range(nproc):
process_list[j].join()
task_queue.close()
done_queue.close()
main()
This works in the sense that it calculates everything correctly, and it is caching the data that is read along the way. The only problem I'm having is that at the end, the big_files object doesn't have any of the files loaded. The final msg returned is:
Process-2, job 999. Answer for file 198 = 0.083406
BigFiles: 4303246400, 4314056248 Storing 198 of 200 files in memory
But then after it's all done, we have:
Finished all jobs
big_files.summary = BigFiles: 4303246400, 4314056248 Storing 0 of 200 files in memory
So my question is: What happened to all the stored data? It's claiming to be using the same self.data according to the id(self.data). But it's empty now.
I want the end state of big_files to have all the saved data that it accumulated along the way, since I actually have to repeat this entire process many times, so I don't want to have to redo all the (slow) I/O each time.
I'm assuming it must have something to do with my ObjectGetter class. The examples for using BaseManager only show how to make a new object that will be shared, not share an existing one. So am I doing something wrong with way I get the existing big_files object? Can anyone suggest a better way to do this step?
Thanks much!