I need to schedule a periodic function call in python (ie. called every minute), without blocking the event loop (I'm using Quart framework with asyncio).
Essentially need to submit work onto the event loop, with a timer, so that the webserver keeps serving incoming requests in the meantime and roughly every minute it calls my function.
I tried many ways, for instance:
def do_work():
print("WORK", flush=True)
async def schedule():
await asyncio.sleep(0)
print("scheduling")
loop = asyncio.get_running_loop()
t = loop.call_later(2, do_work)
print("scheduled")
asyncio.run(schedule())
But it either never gets executed (like the code above), or it blocks the webserver main event loop. For instance, with the code above I would expect (since it's done within asyncio.run and schedule awaits timer) that "scheduling" would be printed after (or during) the server setup, but that's not the case, it blocks.
You can use a background task that is started on startup,
async def schedule():
while True:
await asyncio.sleep(1)
await do_work()
#app.before_serving
async def startup():
app.add_background_task(schedule)
which will run schedule for the lifetime of the app, being cancelled at shutdown.
Related
Just can't wrap my head around solving this issue, so maybe someone here can enlighten me or maybe even tell me that what I want to achieve isn't possible. :)
Problem statement:
I have an asyncio event loop, on that loop I create a task by supplying my asynchronous coroutine work(). I could then go ahead and cancel the task by invoking its cancel() method - this works.
But in my very special case, the asynchronous task itself spawns another operation, which is an underlying blocking / synchronous function.
What happens now, if I decide to cancel the task, is that my asynchronous work() function will be cancelled appropriately, however, the synchronous function is still going to be executed as if nothing ever happened.
I tried to make an example as simple as possible to illustrate my problem:
import asyncio
import time
def sync_work():
time.sleep(10)
print("sync work completed")
return "sync_work_result"
async def work(loop):
result = await loop.run_in_executor(None, sync_work)
print(f"sync_work {result}")
print("work completed")
async def main(loop):
t1 = loop.create_task(work(loop))
await asyncio.sleep(4)
t1.cancel()
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
try:
asyncio.ensure_future(main(loop))
loop.run_forever()
except KeyboardInterrupt:
pass
finally:
print("loop closing")
loop.close()
This will print out sync work completed after about 10 seconds.
How would I invoke the synchronous function in a way, that would allow me to terminate it once my asynchronous task is cancelled? The tricky part is, that I would not have control over sync_work() as this comes from another external package.
I'm open to other approaches of calling my synchronous function from an asynchronous function that would allow it to be terminated properly in some kind of way.
If I have a coroutine currently sleeping to allow other coroutines to run, is is possible to change the sleep time while sleeping? Or would I have to cancel and restart the coroutine. I think I may have just answered myself there. Looking for help from the more experienced.
The "sleep" coroutine is obviously designed to be simple: it pauses for that amount of time, and it is it.
What you seem to need is a way to synchronize your co-routines, and if no signal gets back in an specified amount of time (the time you are passing to sleep), to move on.
Take a look at the synchronization primitives https://docs.python.org/3.6/library/asyncio-sync.html and asyncio.wait_for
So, you can instead of asyncio.sleep, call a co-routine, with wait_for, where it expects an Event, or a Lock release. The Event or lock-release then is used by whatever part of your code would "cancel sleep" anyway.
I created an example to show both sleeping running to the end, and being canceled.
import asyncio
async def interruptable_sleep(time, event):
try:
await asyncio.wait_for(event.wait(), timeout=time)
except asyncio.TimeoutError:
print("'sleeping' proceeded normaly")
else:
print("'sleeping' canceled")
async def sleeper(m, n, event):
await asyncio.sleep(n)
if n == 3:
event.set()
print(f"cycle {m}, step {n}")
async def main():
event = asyncio.Event()
tasks = []
for cycle in range(3):
event.clear()
# create batch of async tasks to run in parallel
for step in range(6):
tasks.append(asyncio.create_task(sleeper(cycle, step, event), name=f"{cycle}_{step}"))
await interruptable_sleep(2, event)
# 'join' remaining tasks
event.set()
await asyncio.gather(*tasks)
asyncio.run(main())
This pattern sort of "reverses" the idea of a timeout: if a task finishes early, the waiting is canceled . (while timeout means "if a task is too late, cancel it") -
But maybe ou just need the other pattern there: to create a list of all your tasks and call asyncio.gather, rather than calling "sleep" to give "time for the other tasks to run".
I'm trying to understand how asyncio works. As for I/O operation i got understand that when await was called, we register Future object in EventLoop, and then calling epoll for get sockets which belongs to Future objects, that ready for give us data. After we run registred callback and resume function execution.
But, the thing that i cant understant, what's happening if we use await not for I/O operation. How eventloop understands that task is complete? Is it create socket for that or use another kind of loop? Is it use epoll? Or doesnt it add to Loop and used it as generator?
There is an example:
import asyncio
async def test():
return 10
async def my_coro(delay):
loop = asyncio.get_running_loop()
end_time = loop.time() + delay
while True:
print("Blocking...")
await test()
if loop.time() > end_time:
print("Done.")
break
async def main():
await my_coro(3.0)
asyncio.run(main())
await doesn't automatically yield to the event loop, that happens only when an async function (anywhere in the chain of awaits) requests suspension, typically due to IO or timeout not being ready.
In your example the event loop is never returned to, which you can easily verify by moving the "Blocking" print before the while loop and changing main to await asyncio.gather(my_coro(3.0), my_coro(3.0)). What you'll observe is that the coroutines are executed in series ("blocking" followed by "done", all repeated twice), not in parallel ("blocking" followed by another "blocking" and then twice "done"). The reason for that was that there was simply no opportunity for a context switch - my_coro executed in one go as if they were an ordinary function because none of its awaits ever chose to suspend.
async def caller():
await bar()
print("finish")
async def bar():
// some code here
async def caller():
bar()
print("finish")
def bar():
//some code here
In above example. caller has to wait for the completion of bar() for both cases. Any difference for bar to be a normal / coroutine for this situation? If we want to "await" some functions, why not just use a normal function.
The difference is that in the second example bar() is a non-async function, so it itself cannot await anything. For example, if you wanted to access a web service from within bar(), it wouldn't be a problem in the first example, you'd just use aiohttp. In the second example it would be pretty much impossible, as async libraries require being used from async functions, and non-async libraries will block the whole event loop while waiting for response.
If we want to "await" some functions, why not just use a normal function.
If the function you await doesn't need to communicate with the outside world (e.g. if it just shuffles data in a dict or so), it can and should be a normal function. On the other hand, if it needs to do IO, it should be an async function.
If it's not an async function, then you don't need to await it obviously. Not every function you call inside an async function must be async nor must be awaited; you can call regular non-async functions from within an async function.
The entire asyncio model works around an event loop. Only one task can run at any one time, and the event loop coordinates what is currently running. An await inside a function suspends the execution of that function and allows another task to be run on the event loop. So, in this example:
async def caller():
await bar()
print('finish')
The execution goes like this:
caller() is called and scheduled on the event loop, which will execute it as soon as an availability exists.
It calls bar(), which schedules its execution on the event loop.
The await suspends the execution of caller.
The event loop executes bar; let's say it's making a network request, so nothing will happen until that response returns, the event loop is free to run any other scheduled async tasks…
The network response returns, the event loop resumes the execution of bar.
bar ends, the event loop resumes the execution of caller.
await exists to coordinate the sequence in which asynchronous tasks are run and what task depends on the result of what other task.
A coroutine can't run in the simply calling, it need to run in event loop.
The event loop will listen for the events that we add into the event pool and execute callback when the event fire
And when it execute the "await" part of the code, it probably means that there are some I/O bounds task, so that the event loop will go on next event, so that won't block the thread.
I am using Python3 Asyncio module to create a load balancing application. I have two heavy IO tasks:
A SNMP polling module, which determines the best possible server
A "proxy-like" module, which balances the petitions to the selected server.
Both processes are going to run forever, are independent from eachother and should not be blocked by the other one.
I cant use 1 event loop because they would block eachother, is there any way to have 2 event loops or do I have to use multithreading/processing?
I tried using asyncio.new_event_loop() but havent managed to make it work.
The whole point of asyncio is that you can run multiple thousands of I/O-heavy tasks concurrently, so you don't need Threads at all, this is exactly what asyncio is made for. Just run the two coroutines (SNMP and proxy) in the same loop and that's it.
You have to make both of them available to the event loop BEFORE calling loop.run_forever(). Something like this:
import asyncio
async def snmp():
print("Doing the snmp thing")
await asyncio.sleep(1)
async def proxy():
print("Doing the proxy thing")
await asyncio.sleep(2)
async def main():
while True:
await snmp()
await proxy()
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.create_task(main())
loop.run_forever()
I don't know the structure of your code, so the different modules might have their own infinite loop or something, in this case you can run something like this:
import asyncio
async def snmp():
while True:
print("Doing the snmp thing")
await asyncio.sleep(1)
async def proxy():
while True:
print("Doing the proxy thing")
await asyncio.sleep(2)
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.create_task(snmp())
loop.create_task(proxy())
loop.run_forever()
Remember, both snmp and proxy needs to be coroutines (async def) written in an asyncio-aware manner. asyncio will not make simple blocking Python functions suddenly "async".
In your specific case, I suspect that you are confused a little bit (no offense!), because well-written async modules will never block each other in the same loop. If this is the case, you don't need asyncio at all and just simply run one of them in a separate Thread without dealing with any asyncio stuff.
Answering my own question to post my solution:
What I ended up doing was creating a thread and a new event loop inside the thread for the polling module, so now every module runs in a different loop. It is not a perfect solution, but it is the only one that made sense to me(I wanted to avoid threads, but since it is only one...). Example:
import asyncio
import threading
def worker():
second_loop = asyncio.new_event_loop()
execute_polling_coroutines_forever(second_loop)
return
threads = []
t = threading.Thread(target=worker)
threads.append(t)
t.start()
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
execute_proxy_coroutines_forever(loop)
Asyncio requires that every loop runs its coroutines in the same thread. Using this method you have one event loop foreach thread, and they are totally independent: every loop will execute its coroutines on its own thread, so that is not a problem.
As I said, its probably not the best solution, but it worked for me.
Though in most cases, you don't need multiple event loops running when using asyncio, people shouldn't assume their assumptions apply to all the cases or just give you what they think are better without directly targeting your original question.
Here's a demo of what you can do for creating new event loops in threads. Comparing to your own answer, the set_event_loop does the trick for you not to pass the loop object every time you do an asyncio-based operation.
import asyncio
import threading
async def print_env_info_async():
# As you can see each work thread has its own asyncio event loop.
print(f"Thread: {threading.get_ident()}, event loop: {id(asyncio.get_running_loop())}")
async def work():
while True:
await print_env_info_async()
await asyncio.sleep(1)
def worker():
new_loop = asyncio.new_event_loop()
asyncio.set_event_loop(new_loop)
new_loop.run_until_complete(work())
return
number_of_threads = 2
for _ in range(number_of_threads):
threading.Thread(target=worker).start()
Ideally, you'll want to put heavy works in worker threads and leave the asncyio thread run as light as possible. Think the asyncio thread as the GUI thread of a desktop or mobile app, you don't want to block it. Worker threads are usually very busy, this is one of the reason you don't want to create separate asyncio event loops in worker threads. Here's an example of how to manage heavy worker threads with a single asyncio event loop. And this is the most common practice in this kind of use cases:
import asyncio
import concurrent.futures
import threading
import time
def print_env_info(source_thread_id):
# This will be called in the main thread where the default asyncio event loop lives.
print(f"Thread: {threading.get_ident()}, event loop: {id(asyncio.get_running_loop())}, source thread: {source_thread_id}")
def work(event_loop):
while True:
# The following line will fail because there's no asyncio event loop running in this worker thread.
# print(f"Thread: {threading.get_ident()}, event loop: {id(asyncio.get_running_loop())}")
event_loop.call_soon_threadsafe(print_env_info, threading.get_ident())
time.sleep(1)
async def worker():
print(f"Thread: {threading.get_ident()}, event loop: {id(asyncio.get_running_loop())}")
loop = asyncio.get_running_loop()
number_of_threads = 2
executor = concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=number_of_threads)
for _ in range(number_of_threads):
asyncio.ensure_future(loop.run_in_executor(executor, work, loop))
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.create_task(worker())
loop.run_forever()
I know it's an old thread but it might be still helpful for someone.
I'm not good in asyncio but here is a bit improved solution of #kissgyorgy answer. Instead of awaiting each closure separately we create list of tasks and fire them later (python 3.9):
import asyncio
async def snmp():
while True:
print("Doing the snmp thing")
await asyncio.sleep(0.4)
async def proxy():
while True:
print("Doing the proxy thing")
await asyncio.sleep(2)
async def main():
tasks = []
tasks.append(asyncio.create_task(snmp()))
tasks.append(asyncio.create_task(proxy()))
await asyncio.gather(*tasks)
asyncio.run(main())
Result:
Doing the snmp thing
Doing the proxy thing
Doing the snmp thing
Doing the snmp thing
Doing the snmp thing
Doing the snmp thing
Doing the proxy thing
Asyncio event loop is a single thread running and it will not run anything in parallel, it is how it is designed. The closest thing which I can think of is using asyncio.wait.
from asyncio import coroutine
import asyncio
#coroutine
def some_work(x, y):
print("Going to do some heavy work")
yield from asyncio.sleep(1.0)
print(x + y)
#coroutine
def some_other_work(x, y):
print("Going to do some other heavy work")
yield from asyncio.sleep(3.0)
print(x * y)
if __name__ == '__main__':
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.run_until_complete(asyncio.wait([asyncio.async(some_work(3, 4)),
asyncio.async(some_other_work(3, 4))]))
loop.close()
an alternate way is to use asyncio.gather() - it returns a future results from the given list of futures.
tasks = [asyncio.Task(some_work(3, 4)), asyncio.Task(some_other_work(3, 4))]
loop.run_until_complete(asyncio.gather(*tasks))
If the proxy server is running all the time it cannot switch back and forth. The proxy listens for client requests and makes them asynchronous, but the other task cannot execute, because this one is serving forever.
If the proxy is a coroutine and is starving the SNMP-poller (never awaits), isn't the client requests being starved aswell?
every coroutine will run forever, they will not end
This should be fine, as long as they do await/yield from. The echo server will also run forever, it doesn't mean you can't run several servers (on differents ports though) in the same loop.