We Keep Coding

How to properly implement producer consumer in python

I have two threads in a producer consumer pattern. When the consumer receives data it calls an time consuming function expensive() and then enters in a for loop.
But if while the consumer is working new data arrives, it should abort the current work, (exit the loop) and start with the new data.
I tried with a queue.Queue something like this:
q = queue.Queue()
def producer():
while True:
...
q.put(d)
def consumer():
while True:
d = q.get()
expensive(d)
for i in range(10000):
...
if not q.empty():
break
But the problem with this code is that if the producer put data too too fast, and the queue get to have many items, the consumer will do the expensive(d) call plus one loop iteration and then abort for each item, which is time consuming. The code should work, but is not optimized.

Without modifying the code in expensive one solution could be to run it as a separate process which will provide you the ability to terminateit prematurely. Since there's no mention to how long expensive runs this may or may not be more time efficient, however.
import multiprocessing as mp
q = queue.Queue()
def producer():
while True:
...
q.put(d)
def consumer():
while True:
d = q.get()
exp = mp.Thread(target=expensive, args=(d,))
for i in range(10000):
...
if not q.empty():
exp.terminate() # or exp.kill()
break

Well, one way is to use a queue design that can keep an internal lists of waiting and working threads. You can then create several consumer threads to wait on the queue and, when work arrives, set a known consumer thread to do the work. When the thread has finished, it calls into the queue to remove itself from the working list and add itself to the waiting list.
The consumer threads each have an 'abort' atomic that can signal the thread to finish early. There will be some latency while the thread performs inner loops, but that will not matter....
If new work arrives at the queue from the producer, and the working queue is not empty, the 'abort' bool of the working thread/s can be set and their priority set to the minimum possible. The new work can then be dispatched onto one of the waiting threads from the pool, so setting it working.
The waiting threads will need a 'start' function that signals an event/sema/condvar that the wait thread..well..waits on. That allows the producer that supplied work to set that specific thread running, rather than the 'usual' practice where any thread from a pool may pick up work.
Such a design allows new work to be started 'immediately', makes the previous work thread irrelevant by de-prioritizing it and avoids the overheads of thread/process termination.

Mixing multiprocessing Pool (producers) with Process (consumer) [duplicate]

I'm using the multiprocessing module to split up a very large task. It works for the most part, but I must be missing something obvious with my design, because this way it's very hard for me to effectively tell when all of the data has been processed.
I have two separate tasks that run; one that feeds the other. I guess this is a producer/consumer problem. I use a shared Queue between all processes, where the producers fill up the queue, and the consumers read from the queue and do the processing. The problem is that there is a finite amount of data, so at some point everyone needs to know that all of the data has been processed so the system can shut down gracefully.
It would seem to make sense to use the map_async() function, but since the producers are filling up the queue, I don't know all of the items up front, so I have to go into a while loop and use apply_async() and try to detect when everything is done with some sort of timeout...ugly.
I feel like I'm missing something obvious. How can this be better designed?
PRODCUER
class ProducerProcess(multiprocessing.Process):
def __init__(self, item, consumer_queue):
self.item = item
self.consumer_queue = consumer_queue
multiprocessing.Process.__init__(self)
def run(self):
for record in get_records_for_item(self.item): # this takes time
self.consumer_queue.put(record)
def start_producer_processes(producer_queue, consumer_queue, max_running):
running = []
while not producer_queue.empty():
running = [r for r in running if r.is_alive()]
if len(running) < max_running:
producer_item = producer_queue.get()
p = ProducerProcess(producer_item, consumer_queue)
p.start()
running.append(p)
time.sleep(1)
CONSUMER
def process_consumer_chunk(queue, chunksize=10000):
for i in xrange(0, chunksize):
try:
# don't wait too long for an item
# if new records don't arrive in 10 seconds, process what you have
# and let the next process pick up more items.
record = queue.get(True, 10)
except Queue.Empty:
break
do_stuff_with_record(record)
MAIN
if __name__ == "__main__":
manager = multiprocessing.Manager()
consumer_queue = manager.Queue(1024*1024)
producer_queue = manager.Queue()
producer_items = xrange(0,10)
for item in producer_items:
producer_queue.put(item)
p = multiprocessing.Process(target=start_producer_processes, args=(producer_queue, consumer_queue, 8))
p.start()
consumer_pool = multiprocessing.Pool(processes=16, maxtasksperchild=1)
Here is where it gets cheesy. I can't use map, because the list to consume is being filled up at the same time. So I have to go into a while loop and try to detect a timeout. The consumer_queue can become empty while the producers are still trying to fill it up, so I can't just detect an empty queue an quit on that.
timed_out = False
timeout= 1800
while 1:
try:
result = consumer_pool.apply_async(process_consumer_chunk, (consumer_queue, ), dict(chunksize=chunksize,))
if timed_out:
timed_out = False
except Queue.Empty:
if timed_out:
break
timed_out = True
time.sleep(timeout)
time.sleep(1)
consumer_queue.join()
consumer_pool.close()
consumer_pool.join()
I thought that maybe I could get() the records in the main thread and pass those into the consumer instead of passing the queue in, but I think I end up with the same problem that way. I still have to run a while loop and use apply_async() Thank you in advance for any advice!

You could use a manager.Event to signal the end of the work. This event can be shared between all of your processes and then when you signal it from your main process the other workers can then gracefully shutdown.
while not event.is_set():
...rest of code...
So, your consumers would wait for the event to be set and handle the cleanup once it is set.
To determine when to set this flag you can do a join on the producer threads and when those are all complete you can then join on the consumer threads.

I would like to strongly recommend SimPy instead of multiprocess/threading to do discrete event simulation.

Managing thread execution in Python

I am currently using worker threads in Python to get tasks from a Queue and execute them, as follows:
from queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
def run_job(item)
#runs an independent job...
pass
def workingThread():
while True:
item = q.get()
run_job(item)
q.task_done()
q = Queue()
num_worker_threads = 2
for i in range(num_worker_threads):
t = Thread(target=workingThread)
t.daemon = True
t.start()
for item in listOfJobs:
q.put(item)
q.join()
This is functional, but there is an issue: some of the jobs to be executed under the run_job function are very memory-demanding and can only be run individually. Given that I could identify these during runtime, how could I manage to put the parallel worker threads to halt their execution until said job is taken care of?
Edit: It has been flagged as a possible duplicate of Python - Thread that I can pause and resume, and I have referred to this question before asking, and it surely is a reference that has to be cited. However, I don't think it adresses this situation specifically, as it does not consider the jobs being inside a Queue, nor how to specifically point to the other objects that have to be halted.

I would pause/resume the threads so that they run individually.
The following thread
Python - Thread that I can pause and resume indicates how to do that.

End processing when all processes are trying to get from the queue and the queue is empty?

I want to set up some processes that take an input and process it and the result of this result is another task that I want to be handled. Essentially each task results in zero or multiple new tasks (of the same type) eventually all tasks will yield no new tasks.
I figured a queue would be good for this so I have an input queue and a results queue to add the tasks that result in nothing new. At any one time, the queue might be empty but more could be added if another process is working on a task.
Hence, I only want it to end when all processes are simultaneously trying to get from the input queue.
I am completely new to both python multiprocessing and multiprocessing in general.
Edited to add a basic overview of what I mean:
class Consumer(Process):
def __init__(self, name):
super().__init__(name=name)
def run():
# This is where I would have the task try to get a new task off of the
# queue and then calculate the results and put them into the queue
# After which it would then try to get a new task and repeat
# If this an all other processes are trying to get and the queue is
# empty That is the only time I know that everything is complete and can
# continue
pass
def start_processing():
in_queue = Queue()
results_queue = Queue()
consumers = [Consumer(str(i)) for i in range(cpu_count())]
for i in consumers:
i.start()
# Wait for the above mentioned conditions to be true before continuing

The JoinableQueue has been designed to fit this purpose. Joining a JoinableQueue will block until there are tasks in progress.
You can use it as follows: the main process will spawn a certain amount of worker processes assigning them the JoinableQueue. The worker processes will use the queue to produce and consume new tasks. The main process will wait by joining the queue up until no more tasks are in progress. After that, it will terminate the worker processes and quit.
A very simplified example (pseudocode):
def consumer(queue):
for task in queue.get():
results = process_task(task)
if 'more_tasks' in results:
for new_task in results['more_tasks']:
queue.put(new_task)
# signal the queue that a task has been completed
queue.task_done()
def main():
queue = JoinableQueue()
processes = start_processes(consumer, queue)
for task in initial_tasks:
queue.put(task)
queue.join() # block until all work is done
terminate_processes(processes)

How to list Processes started by multiprocessing Pool?

While attempting to store multiprocessing's process instance in multiprocessing list-variable 'poolList` I am getting a following exception:
SimpleQueue objects should only be shared between processes through inheritance
The reason why I would like to store the PROCESS instances in a variable is to be able to terminate all or just some of them later (if for example a PROCESS freezes). If storing a PROCESS in variable is not an option I would like to know how to get or to list all the PROCESSES started by mutliprocessing POOL. That would be very similar to what .current_process() method does. Except .current_process gets only a single process while I need all the processes started or all the processes currently running.
Two questions:
Is it even possible to store an instance of the Process (as a result of mp.current_process()
Currently I am only able to get a single process from inside of the function that the process is running (from inside of myFunct() using .current_process() method).
Instead I would like to to list all the processes currently running by multiprocessing. How to achieve it?
import multiprocessing as mp
poolList=mp.Manager().list()
def myFunct(arg):
print 'myFunct(): current process:', mp.current_process()
try: poolList.append(mp.current_process())
except Exception, e: print e
for i in range(110):
for n in range(500000):
pass
poolDict[arg]=i
print 'myFunct(): completed', arg, poolDict
from multiprocessing import Pool
pool = Pool(processes=2)
myArgsList=['arg1','arg2','arg3']
pool=Pool(processes=2)
pool.map_async(myFunct, myArgsList)
pool.close()
pool.join()

To list the processes started by a Pool()-instance(which is what you mean if I understand you correctly), there is the pool._pool-list. And it contains the instances of the processes.
However, it is not part of the documented interface and hence, really should not be used.
BUT...it seems a little bit unlikely that it would change just like that anyway. I mean, should they stop having an internal list of processes in the pool? And not call that _pool?
And also, it annoys me that there at least isn't a get processes-method. Or something.
And handling it breaking due to some name change should not be that difficult.
But still, use at your own risk:
from multiprocessing import pool
# Have to run in main
if __name__ == '__main__':
# Create 3 worker processes
_my_pool = pool.Pool(3)
# Loop, terminate, and remove from the process list
# Use a copy [:] of the list to remove items correctly
for _curr_process in _my_pool._pool[:]:
print("Terminating process "+ str(_curr_process.pid))
_curr_process.terminate()
_my_pool._pool.remove(_curr_process)
# If you call _repopulate, the pool will again contain 3 worker processes.
_my_pool._repopulate_pool()
for _curr_process in _my_pool._pool[:]:
print("After repopulation "+ str(_curr_process.pid))
The example creates a pool and manually terminates all processes.
It is important that you remember to delete the process you terminate from the pool yourself i you want Pool() to continue working as usual.
_my_pool._repopulate increases the number of working processes to 3 again, not needed to answer the question, but gives a little bit of behind-the-scenes insight.

Yes you can get all active process and perform action based on name of process
e.g
multiprocessing.Process(target=foo, name="refresh-reports")
and then
for p in multiprocessing.active_children():
if p.name == "foo":
p.terminate()

You're creating a managed List object, but then letting the associated Manager object expire.
Process objects are shareable because they aren't pickle-able; that is, they aren't simple.
Oddly the multiprocessing module doesn't have the equivalent of threading.enumerate() -- that is, you can't list all outstanding processes. As a workaround, I just store procs in a list. I never terminate() a process, but do sys.exit(0) in the parent. It's rough, because the workers will leave things in an inconsistent state, but it's okay for smaller programs
To kill a frozen worker, I suggest: 1) worker receives "heartbeat" jobs in a queue every now and then, 2) if parent notices worker A hasn't responded to a heartbeat in a certain amount of time, then p.terminate(). Consider restating the problem in another SO question, as it's interesting.
To be honest the map stuff is much easier than using a Manager.
Here's a Manager example I've used. A worker adds stuff to a shared list. Another worker occasionally wakes up, processes everything on the list, then goes back to sleep. The code also has verbose logs, which are essential for ease in debugging.
source
# producer adds to fixed-sized list; scanner uses them
import logging, multiprocessing, sys, time
def producer(objlist):
'''
add an item to list every sec; ensure fixed size list
'''
logger = multiprocessing.get_logger()
logger.info('start')
while True:
try:
time.sleep(1)
except KeyboardInterrupt:
return
msg = 'ding: {:04d}'.format(int(time.time()) % 10000)
logger.info('put: %s', msg)
del objlist[0]
objlist.append( msg )
def scanner(objlist):
'''
every now and then, run calculation on objlist
'''
logger = multiprocessing.get_logger()
logger.info('start')
while True:
try:
time.sleep(5)
except KeyboardInterrupt:
return
logger.info('items: %s', list(objlist))
def main():
logger = multiprocessing.log_to_stderr(
level=logging.INFO
)
logger.info('setup')
# create fixed-length list, shared between producer & consumer
manager = multiprocessing.Manager()
my_objlist = manager.list( # pylint: disable=E1101
[None] * 10
)
multiprocessing.Process(
target=producer,
args=(my_objlist,),
name='producer',
).start()
multiprocessing.Process(
target=scanner,
args=(my_objlist,),
name='scanner',
).start()
logger.info('running forever')
try:
manager.join() # wait until both workers die
except KeyboardInterrupt:
pass
logger.info('done')
if __name__=='__main__':
main()