We Keep Coding

How to run multiple for loops in parallel under a single function in python

Is there a way to have multithreading implemented for multiple for loops under a single function. I am aware that it can be achieved if we have separate functions, but is it possible to have it under the same function.
For example:
def sqImport():
for i in (0,50):
do something specific to 0-49
for i in (50,100):
do something specific to 50-99
for i in (100,150):
do something specific to 100-149
If there are 3 separate functions for 3 different for loops then we can do:
threadA = Thread(target = loopA)
threadB = Thread(target = loopB)
threadC = Thread(target = loopC)
threadA.run()
threadB.run()
threadC.run()
# Do work indepedent of loopA and loopB
threadA.join()
threadB.join()
threadC.join()
But is there a way to achieve this under a single function?

First of all: I think you really should take a look at multiprocessing.ThreadPool if you are going to use it in a productive system. What I describe below is just a possible workaround (which might be simpler and therefore could be used for testing purposes).
You could pass an id to the function and use that to decide which loop you take like so:
from threading import Thread
def sqImport(tId):
if tId == 0:
for i in range(0,50):
print i
elif tId == 1:
for i in range(50,100):
print i
elif tId == 2:
for i in range(100,150):
print i
threadA = Thread(target = sqImport, args=[0])
threadB = Thread(target = sqImport, args=[1])
threadC = Thread(target = sqImport, args=[2])
threadA.start()
threadB.start()
threadC.start()
# Do work indepedent of loopA and loopB
threadA.join()
threadB.join()
threadC.join()
Note that I used start() instead of run() because run() does not start a different thread but executes in the current thread context. Moreover I changed your for i in (x, y) loops in for i in range(x,y) loops, because I think, You want to iterate over a range and not a tuple(that would iterate only over x and y).
An alternative Solution using multiprocessing might look like this:
from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool as ThreadPool
# The worker function
def sqImport(data):
for i in data:
print i
# The three ranges for the three different threads
ranges = [
range(0, 50),
range(50, 100),
range(100, 150)
]
# Create a threadpool with 3 threads
pool = ThreadPool(3)
# Run sqImport() on all ranges
pool.map(sqImport, ranges)
pool.close()
pool.join()

You can use multiprocessing.ThreadPool which will divide you tasks equally between running threads.
Follow Threading pool similar to the multiprocessing Pool? for more on this.
If you are really looking for parallel execution then go for processes because threads will face python GIL(Global Interpreted Lock).

Different inputs for different processes in python multiprocessing

Please bear with me as this is a bit of a contrived example of my real application. Suppose I have a list of numbers and I wanted to add a single number to each number in the list using multiple (2) processes. I can do something like this:
import multiprocessing
my_list = list(range(100))
my_number = 5
data_line = [{'list_num': i, 'my_num': my_number} for i in my_list]
def worker(data):
return data['list_num'] + data['my_num']
pool = multiprocessing.Pool(processes=2)
pool_output = pool.map(worker, data_line)
pool.close()
pool.join()
Now however, there's a wrinkle to my problem. Suppose that I wanted to alternate adding two numbers (instead of just adding one). So around half the time, I want to add my_number1 and the other half of the time I want to add my_number2. It doesn't matter which number gets added to which item on the list. However, the one requirement is that I don't want to be adding the same number simultaneously at the same time across the different processes. What this boils down to essentially (I think) is that I want to use the first number on Process 1 and the second number on Process 2 exclusively so that the processes are never simultaneously adding the same number. So something like:
my_num1 = 5
my_num2 = 100
data_line = [{'list_num': i, 'my_num1': my_num1, 'my_num2': my_num2} for i in my_list]
def worker(data):
# if in Process 1:
return data['list_num'] + data['my_num1']
# if in Process 2:
return data['list_num'] + data['my_num2']
# and so forth
Is there an easy way to specify specific inputs per process? Is there another way to think about this problem?

multiprocessing.Pool allows to execute an initializer function which is going to be executed before the actual given function will be run.
You can use it altogether with a global variable to allow your function to understand in which process is running.
You probably want to control the initial number the processes will get. You can use a Queue to notify to the processes which number to pick up.
This solution is not optimal but it works.
import multiprocessing
process_number = None
def initializer(queue):
global process_number
process_number = queue.get() # atomic get the process index
def function(value):
print "I'm process %s" % process_number
return value[process_number]
def main():
queue = multiprocessing.Queue()
for index in range(multiprocessing.cpu_count()):
queue.put(index)
pool = multiprocessing.Pool(initializer=initializer, initargs=[queue])
tasks = [{0: 'Process-0', 1: 'Process-1', 2: 'Process-2'}, ...]
print(pool.map(function, tasks))
My PC is a dual core, as you can see only Process-0 and Process-1 are processed.
I'm process 0
I'm process 0
I'm process 1
I'm process 0
I'm process 1
...
['Process-0', 'Process-0', 'Process-1', 'Process-0', ... ]

Multi-process, using Queue & Pool

I have a Producer process that runs and puts the results in a Queue
I also have a Consumer function that takes the results from the Queue and processes them , for example:
def processFrame(Q,commandsFile):
fr = Q.get()
frameNum = fr[0]
Frame = fr[1]
#
# Process the frame
#
commandsFile.write(theProcessedResult)
I want to run my consumer function using multiple processes, they number should be set by user:
processes = raw_input('Enter the number of process you want to use: ')
i tried using Pool:
pool = Pool(int(processes))
pool.apply(processFrame, args=(q,toFile))
when i try this , it returns a RuntimeError: Queue objects should only be shared between processes through inheritance.
what does that mean?
I also tried to use a list of processes:
while (q.empty() == False):
mp = [Process(target=processFrame, args=(q,toFile)) for x in range(int(processes))]
for p in mp:
p.start()
for p in mp:
p.join()
This one seems to run, but not as expected.
it using multiple processes on same frame from Queue, doesn't Queue have locks?
also ,in this case the number of processes i'm allowed to use must divide the number of frames without residue(reminder) - for example:
if i have 10 frames i can use only 1,2,5,10 processes. if i use 3,4.. it will create a process while Q empty and wont work.

if u want to recycle the procces until q is empty u should just try to do somthing like that:
code1:
def proccesframe():
while(True):
frame = queue.get()
##do something
your procces will be blocked until there is something in the queue
i dont think that's a good idie to use multiproccess on the cunsomer part , you should use them on the producer.
if u want to terminate the procces when the queue is empty u can do something like that:
code2:
def proccesframe():
while(!queue.empty()):
frame = queue.get()
##do something
terminate_procces()
update:
if u want to use multiproccesing in the consumer part just do a simple loop and add code2 , then you will be able to close your proccess when u finish doing stuff with the queue.

I am not entirely sure what are you trying to accomplish from your explanation, but have you considered using multiprocessing.Pool with its methods map or map_async?
from multiprocessing import Pool
from foo import bar # your function
if __name__ == "__main__":
p = Pool(4) # your number of processes
result = p.map_async(bar, [("arg #1", "arg #2"), ...])
print result.get()
It collects result from your function in unordered(!) iterable and you can use it however you wish.
UPDATE
I think you should not use queue and be more straightforward:
from multiprocessing import Pool
def process_frame(fr): # PEP8 and see the difference in definition
# magic
return result # and result handling!
if __name__ == "__main__":
p = Pool(4) # your number of processes
results = p.map_async(process_frame, [fr_1, fr_2, ...])
# Do not ever write or manipulate with files in parallel processes
# if you are not 100% sure what you are doing!
for result in results.get():
commands_file.write(result)
UPDATE 2
from multiprocessing import Pool
import random
import time
def f(x):
return x*x
def g(yr):
with open("result.txt", "ab") as f:
for y in yr:
f.write("{}\n".format(y))
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = Pool(4)
while True:
# here you fetch new data and send it to process
new_data = [random.randint(1, 50) for i in range(4)]
pool.map_async(f, new_data, callback=g)
Some example how to do it and I updated the algorithm to be "infinite", it can be only closed by interruption or kill command from outside. You can use also apply_async, but it would cause slow downs with result handling (depending on speed of processing).
I have also tried using long-time open result.txt in global scope, but every time it hit deadlock.

Python Multiprocessing.Pool lazy iteration

I'm wondering about the way that python's Multiprocessing.Pool class works with map, imap, and map_async. My particular problem is that I want to map on an iterator that creates memory-heavy objects, and don't want all these objects to be generated into memory at the same time. I wanted to see if the various map() functions would wring my iterator dry, or intelligently call the next() function only as child processes slowly advanced, so I hacked up some tests as such:
def g():
for el in xrange(100):
print el
yield el
def f(x):
time.sleep(1)
return x*x
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = Pool(processes=4) # start 4 worker processes
go = g()
g2 = pool.imap(f, go)
g2.next()
And so on with map, imap, and map_async. This is the most flagrant example however, as simply calling next() a single time on g2 prints out all my elements from my generator g(), whereas if imap were doing this 'lazily' I would expect it to only call go.next() once, and therefore print out only '1'.
Can someone clear up what is happening, and if there is some way to have the process pool 'lazily' evaluate the iterator as needed?
Thanks,
Gabe

Let's look at the end of the program first.
The multiprocessing module uses atexit to call multiprocessing.util._exit_function when your program ends.
If you remove g2.next(), your program ends quickly.
The _exit_function eventually calls Pool._terminate_pool. The main thread changes the state of pool._task_handler._state from RUN to TERMINATE. Meanwhile the pool._task_handler thread is looping in Pool._handle_tasks and bails out when it reaches the condition
if thread._state:
debug('task handler found thread._state != RUN')
break
(See /usr/lib/python2.6/multiprocessing/pool.py)
This is what stops the task handler from fully consuming your generator, g(). If you look in Pool._handle_tasks you'll see
for i, task in enumerate(taskseq):
...
try:
put(task)
except IOError:
debug('could not put task on queue')
break
This is the code which consumes your generator. (taskseq is not exactly your generator, but as taskseq is consumed, so is your generator.)
In contrast, when you call g2.next() the main thread calls IMapIterator.next, and waits when it reaches self._cond.wait(timeout).
That the main thread is waiting instead of
calling _exit_function is what allows the task handler thread to run normally, which means fully consuming the generator as it puts tasks in the workers' inqueue in the Pool._handle_tasks function.
The bottom line is that all Pool map functions consume the entire iterable that it is given. If you'd like to consume the generator in chunks, you could do this instead:
import multiprocessing as mp
import itertools
import time
def g():
for el in xrange(50):
print el
yield el
def f(x):
time.sleep(1)
return x * x
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = mp.Pool(processes=4) # start 4 worker processes
go = g()
result = []
N = 11
while True:
g2 = pool.map(f, itertools.islice(go, N))
if g2:
result.extend(g2)
time.sleep(1)
else:
break
print(result)

I had this problem too and was disappointed to learn that map consumes all its elements. I coded a function which consumes the iterator lazily using the Queue data type in multiprocessing. This is similar to what #unutbu describes in a comment to his answer but as he points out, suffers from having no callback mechanism for re-loading the Queue. The Queue datatype instead exposes a timeout parameter and I've used 100 milliseconds to good effect.
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue, cpu_count
from Queue import Full as QueueFull
from Queue import Empty as QueueEmpty
def worker(recvq, sendq):
for func, args in iter(recvq.get, None):
result = func(*args)
sendq.put(result)
def pool_imap_unordered(function, iterable, procs=cpu_count()):
# Create queues for sending/receiving items from iterable.
sendq = Queue(procs)
recvq = Queue()
# Start worker processes.
for rpt in xrange(procs):
Process(target=worker, args=(sendq, recvq)).start()
# Iterate iterable and communicate with worker processes.
send_len = 0
recv_len = 0
itr = iter(iterable)
try:
value = itr.next()
while True:
try:
sendq.put((function, value), True, 0.1)
send_len += 1
value = itr.next()
except QueueFull:
while True:
try:
result = recvq.get(False)
recv_len += 1
yield result
except QueueEmpty:
break
except StopIteration:
pass
# Collect all remaining results.
while recv_len < send_len:
result = recvq.get()
recv_len += 1
yield result
# Terminate worker processes.
for rpt in xrange(procs):
sendq.put(None)
This solution has the advantage of not batching requests to Pool.map. One individual worker can not block others from making progress. YMMV. Note that you may want to use a different object to signal termination for the workers. In the example, I've used None.
Tested on "Python 2.7 (r27:82525, Jul 4 2010, 09:01:59) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on win32"

What you want is implemented in the NuMap package, from the website:
NuMap is a parallel (thread- or process-based, local or remote),
buffered, multi-task, itertools.imap or multiprocessing.Pool.imap
function replacement. Like imap it evaluates a function on elements of
a sequence or iterable, and it does so lazily.
Laziness can be adjusted via the “stride” and “buffer” arguments.

In this example (see code, please) 2 workers.
Pool work as expected: when worker is free, then to do next iteration.
This code as code in topic, except one thing: argument size = 64 k.
64 k - default socket buffer size.
import itertools
from multiprocessing import Pool
from time import sleep
def f( x ):
print( "f()" )
sleep( 3 )
return x
def get_reader():
for x in range( 10 ):
print( "readed: ", x )
value = " " * 1024 * 64 # 64k
yield value
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = Pool( processes=2 )
data = p.imap( f, get_reader() )
p.close()
p.join()

I ran into this issue as well, and came to a different solution than the other answers here so I figured I would share it.
import collections, multiprocessing
def map_prefetch(func, data, lookahead=128, workers=16, timeout=10):
with multiprocessing.Pool(workers) as pool:
q = collections.deque()
for x in data:
q.append(pool.apply_async(func, (x,)))
if len(q) >= lookahead:
yield q.popleft().get(timeout=timeout)
while len(q):
yield q.popleft().get(timeout=timeout)
for x in map_prefetch(myfunction, huge_data_iterator):
# do stuff with x
Basically is uses a queue to send at most lookahead pending requests to the worker pool, enforcing a limit on buffered results. The work starts asap within that limit so it can run in parallel. Also the result remains in order.

Multiprocessing with python

how can i control the return value of this function pool apply_asyn
supposing that I have the following cool
import multiprocessing:
de fun(..)
...
...
return value
my_pool = multiprocessing.Pool(2)
for i in range(5) :
result=my_pool.apply_async(fun, [i])
some code going to be here....
digest_pool.close()
digest_pool.join()
here i need to proccess the results
how can i control the result value for every proccess and know to check to which proccess it belongs ,

store the the value of 'i' from the for loop and either print it or return and save it somewhere else.
so if a process happens you can check from which process it was by looking at the variable i.
Hope this helps.

Are you sure, that you need to know, which of your two workers is doing what right now? In such a case you might be better off with Processes and Queues, because, this sounds as some communication between the multiple processes is required.
If you just want to know, which result was processed by which worker, you can simply return a tuple:
#!/usr/bin/python
import multiprocessing
def fun(..)
...
return value, multiprocessing.current_process()._name
my_pool = multiprocessing.Pool(2)
async_result = []
for i in range(5):
async_result.append(my_pool.apply_async(fun, [i]))
# some code going to be here....
my_pool.join()
result = {}
for i in range(5):
result[i] = async_result[i].get()
If you have the different input variables as a list, the map_async command might be a better decision:
#!/usr/bin/python
import multiprocessing
def fun(..)
...
...
return value, multiprocessing.current_process()._name
my_pool = multiprocessing.Pool()
async_results = my_pool.map_async(fun, range(5))
# some code going to be here....
results = async_results.get()
The last line joins the pool. Note, that results is a list of tuples, each tuple containing of your calculated value and the name of the process who calculated it.