I'm using Pool from multiprocessing package (from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool).
I wrote a function that reads a text file and preprocessing it for a future function.
I have about 20,000 such text files, thus I wanted to parallelize the process- and for this I used the pool.
I have 32 cores on my remote server that is running the code, thus I tried to open 70 process (I also tried less, the problem remains) - this is how my system monitor looks like:
As one can see, 16 out of 32 cores don't work at all!
Any help would be appreciated.
As I said in my comment, all multiprocessing.dummy structures are intended to simulate the multiprocessing interface using regular threads which can be quite useful for testing, debugging, profiling etc. Or, as the official docs say:
multiprocessing.dummy replicates the API of multiprocessing but is no more than a wrapper around the threading module.
While Python (CPython) threading uses real system threads, and hence it is in theory possible to have your threaded code execute on different CPUs, due to the dreaded GIL no two of those threads will ever run simultaneously. There are exceptions to that rule, tho - all tasks that are abstracting system calls and wait for an event (like I/O) can execute in parallel but the moment processing moves to the Python domain it will be locked out by GIL and will not be allowed to continue execution until the opt-code counter switches its context.
Long story short, if you want to utilize multiple cores through a multiprocessing pool, do not use the adaptations and abstractions in the multiprocessing.dummy (that reigns true for other dummy packages, too) and use the root multiprocessing module itself - in your case, multiprocessing.pool.Pool.
That being said, given that the threading module doesn't come with a pool interface I often find myself using multiprocessing.dummy.Pool (or multiprocessing.pool.ThreadPool) instead for I/O heavy stuff (i.e. not restricted by the GIL) when shared memory is more important than shared processing and the overhead that it incurs. It's quite possible that even with a switch to multiprocessing.pool.Pool you won't notice much of a difference if you don't do heavy post-processing when you grab the files.
Related
I have a Python app that needs to fetch data from 2-3 different sources (SQL Server, MongoDB etc..) and it can be done in parallel, as I simply need all of the data together later, and each request does not rely on the others.
I couldn't figure which is better for this case - threads, processes or async await?
I read that differences are mostly in CPU usage and I/O. But what if I simply wish to make multiple requests simultaneously (and not sequentially)? Of course, no CPU usage here at all.
I'd suggest you have a look at python's builtin Threading module...
... a quote from the doc:
CPython implementation detail: In CPython, due to the Global Interpreter Lock, only one thread can execute Python code at once (even though certain performance-oriented libraries might overcome this limitation). If you want your application to make better use of the computational resources of multi-core machines, you are advised to use multiprocessing or concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor. However, threading is still an appropriate model if you want to run multiple I/O-bound tasks simultaneously.
in short... multithreading has the problem of GIL (e.g. global interpreter lock) but as you can read here...
...the GIL is always released when doing I/O.
Is it possible launch multiple threads on all available CPUs rather than one? An example code would be great.
Alternatively, can I span multiple processes and then create multi threading within each process?
I am using multithreading which works fine for IO side of my script. However, my script is also computation expensive so I would like to launch multiple threads on multiple CPUs.
My code flow:
def worker(url):
extract url (io bound)
process url content (cpu bound)
What should be the efficient way to deal with such type of worker?
Is it possible launch multiple threads on all available CPUs rather than one?
In general, threads run on whatever CPU is available. Unless you have specified a thread/process to run on a specific CPU. (How this is done varies per operating system)
However, if you are using the Python implementation from python.org ("CPython"), it doesn't matter. CPython has a "Global Interpreter Lock" that enforces that only one thread at a time is executing Python bytecode. So using threads will not yield improved processing performance with CPython.
So for computationally expensive tasks, you should probably use the multiprocessing module to do it in different processes. If the same work is done on a lot of data, using a multiprocessing.Pool is generally a good idea.
I'm slightly confused about whether multithreading works in Python or not.
I know there has been a lot of questions about this and I've read many of them, but I'm still confused. I know from my own experience and have seen others post their own answers and examples here on StackOverflow that multithreading is indeed possible in Python. So why is it that everyone keep saying that Python is locked by the GIL and that only one thread can run at a time? It clearly does work. Or is there some distinction I'm not getting here?
Many posters/respondents also keep mentioning that threading is limited because it does not make use of multiple cores. But I would say they are still useful because they do work simultaneously and thus get the combined workload done faster. I mean why would there even be a Python thread module otherwise?
Update:
Thanks for all the answers so far. The way I understand it is that multithreading will only run in parallel for some IO tasks, but can only run one at a time for CPU-bound multiple core tasks.
I'm not entirely sure what this means for me in practical terms, so I'll just give an example of the kind of task I'd like to multithread. For instance, let's say I want to loop through a very long list of strings and I want to do some basic string operations on each list item. If I split up the list, send each sublist to be processed by my loop/string code in a new thread, and send the results back in a queue, will these workloads run roughly at the same time? Most importantly will this theoretically speed up the time it takes to run the script?
Another example might be if I can render and save four different pictures using PIL in four different threads, and have this be faster than processing the pictures one by one after each other? I guess this speed-component is what I'm really wondering about rather than what the correct terminology is.
I also know about the multiprocessing module but my main interest right now is for small-to-medium task loads (10-30 secs) and so I think multithreading will be more appropriate because subprocesses can be slow to initiate.
The GIL does not prevent threading. All the GIL does is make sure only one thread is executing Python code at a time; control still switches between threads.
What the GIL prevents then, is making use of more than one CPU core or separate CPUs to run threads in parallel.
This only applies to Python code. C extensions can and do release the GIL to allow multiple threads of C code and one Python thread to run across multiple cores. This extends to I/O controlled by the kernel, such as select() calls for socket reads and writes, making Python handle network events reasonably efficiently in a multi-threaded multi-core setup.
What many server deployments then do, is run more than one Python process, to let the OS handle the scheduling between processes to utilize your CPU cores to the max. You can also use the multiprocessing library to handle parallel processing across multiple processes from one codebase and parent process, if that suits your use cases.
Note that the GIL is only applicable to the CPython implementation; Jython and IronPython use a different threading implementation (the native Java VM and .NET common runtime threads respectively).
To address your update directly: Any task that tries to get a speed boost from parallel execution, using pure Python code, will not see a speed-up as threaded Python code is locked to one thread executing at a time. If you mix in C extensions and I/O, however (such as PIL or numpy operations) and any C code can run in parallel with one active Python thread.
Python threading is great for creating a responsive GUI, or for handling multiple short web requests where I/O is the bottleneck more than the Python code. It is not suitable for parallelizing computationally intensive Python code, stick to the multiprocessing module for such tasks or delegate to a dedicated external library.
Yes. :)
You have the low level thread module and the higher level threading module. But it you simply want to use multicore machines, the multiprocessing module is the way to go.
Quote from the docs:
In CPython, due to the Global Interpreter Lock, only one thread can
execute Python code at once (even though certain performance-oriented
libraries might overcome this limitation). If you want your
application to make better use of the computational resources of
multi-core machines, you are advised to use multiprocessing. However,
threading is still an appropriate model if you want to run multiple
I/O-bound tasks simultaneously.
Threading is Allowed in Python, the only problem is that the GIL will make sure that just one thread is executed at a time (no parallelism).
So basically if you want to multi-thread the code to speed up calculation it won't speed it up as just one thread is executed at a time, but if you use it to interact with a database for example it will.
I feel for the poster because the answer is invariably "it depends what you want to do". However parallel speed up in python has always been terrible in my experience even for multiprocessing.
For example check this tutorial out (second to top result in google): https://www.machinelearningplus.com/python/parallel-processing-python/
I put timings around this code and increased the number of processes (2,4,8,16) for the pool map function and got the following bad timings:
serial 70.8921644706279
parallel 93.49704207479954 tasks 2
parallel 56.02441442012787 tasks 4
parallel 51.026168536394835 tasks 8
parallel 39.18044807203114 tasks 16
code:
# increase array size at the start
# my compute node has 40 CPUs so I've got plenty to spare here
arr = np.random.randint(0, 10, size=[2000000, 600])
.... more code ....
tasks = [2,4,8,16]
for task in tasks:
tic = time.perf_counter()
pool = mp.Pool(task)
results = pool.map(howmany_within_range_rowonly, [row for row in data])
pool.close()
toc = time.perf_counter()
time1 = toc - tic
print(f"parallel {time1} tasks {task}")
I'm slightly confused about whether multithreading works in Python or not.
I know there has been a lot of questions about this and I've read many of them, but I'm still confused. I know from my own experience and have seen others post their own answers and examples here on StackOverflow that multithreading is indeed possible in Python. So why is it that everyone keep saying that Python is locked by the GIL and that only one thread can run at a time? It clearly does work. Or is there some distinction I'm not getting here?
Many posters/respondents also keep mentioning that threading is limited because it does not make use of multiple cores. But I would say they are still useful because they do work simultaneously and thus get the combined workload done faster. I mean why would there even be a Python thread module otherwise?
Update:
Thanks for all the answers so far. The way I understand it is that multithreading will only run in parallel for some IO tasks, but can only run one at a time for CPU-bound multiple core tasks.
I'm not entirely sure what this means for me in practical terms, so I'll just give an example of the kind of task I'd like to multithread. For instance, let's say I want to loop through a very long list of strings and I want to do some basic string operations on each list item. If I split up the list, send each sublist to be processed by my loop/string code in a new thread, and send the results back in a queue, will these workloads run roughly at the same time? Most importantly will this theoretically speed up the time it takes to run the script?
Another example might be if I can render and save four different pictures using PIL in four different threads, and have this be faster than processing the pictures one by one after each other? I guess this speed-component is what I'm really wondering about rather than what the correct terminology is.
I also know about the multiprocessing module but my main interest right now is for small-to-medium task loads (10-30 secs) and so I think multithreading will be more appropriate because subprocesses can be slow to initiate.
The GIL does not prevent threading. All the GIL does is make sure only one thread is executing Python code at a time; control still switches between threads.
What the GIL prevents then, is making use of more than one CPU core or separate CPUs to run threads in parallel.
This only applies to Python code. C extensions can and do release the GIL to allow multiple threads of C code and one Python thread to run across multiple cores. This extends to I/O controlled by the kernel, such as select() calls for socket reads and writes, making Python handle network events reasonably efficiently in a multi-threaded multi-core setup.
What many server deployments then do, is run more than one Python process, to let the OS handle the scheduling between processes to utilize your CPU cores to the max. You can also use the multiprocessing library to handle parallel processing across multiple processes from one codebase and parent process, if that suits your use cases.
Note that the GIL is only applicable to the CPython implementation; Jython and IronPython use a different threading implementation (the native Java VM and .NET common runtime threads respectively).
To address your update directly: Any task that tries to get a speed boost from parallel execution, using pure Python code, will not see a speed-up as threaded Python code is locked to one thread executing at a time. If you mix in C extensions and I/O, however (such as PIL or numpy operations) and any C code can run in parallel with one active Python thread.
Python threading is great for creating a responsive GUI, or for handling multiple short web requests where I/O is the bottleneck more than the Python code. It is not suitable for parallelizing computationally intensive Python code, stick to the multiprocessing module for such tasks or delegate to a dedicated external library.
Yes. :)
You have the low level thread module and the higher level threading module. But it you simply want to use multicore machines, the multiprocessing module is the way to go.
Quote from the docs:
In CPython, due to the Global Interpreter Lock, only one thread can
execute Python code at once (even though certain performance-oriented
libraries might overcome this limitation). If you want your
application to make better use of the computational resources of
multi-core machines, you are advised to use multiprocessing. However,
threading is still an appropriate model if you want to run multiple
I/O-bound tasks simultaneously.
Threading is Allowed in Python, the only problem is that the GIL will make sure that just one thread is executed at a time (no parallelism).
So basically if you want to multi-thread the code to speed up calculation it won't speed it up as just one thread is executed at a time, but if you use it to interact with a database for example it will.
I feel for the poster because the answer is invariably "it depends what you want to do". However parallel speed up in python has always been terrible in my experience even for multiprocessing.
For example check this tutorial out (second to top result in google): https://www.machinelearningplus.com/python/parallel-processing-python/
I put timings around this code and increased the number of processes (2,4,8,16) for the pool map function and got the following bad timings:
serial 70.8921644706279
parallel 93.49704207479954 tasks 2
parallel 56.02441442012787 tasks 4
parallel 51.026168536394835 tasks 8
parallel 39.18044807203114 tasks 16
code:
# increase array size at the start
# my compute node has 40 CPUs so I've got plenty to spare here
arr = np.random.randint(0, 10, size=[2000000, 600])
.... more code ....
tasks = [2,4,8,16]
for task in tasks:
tic = time.perf_counter()
pool = mp.Pool(task)
results = pool.map(howmany_within_range_rowonly, [row for row in data])
pool.close()
toc = time.perf_counter()
time1 = toc - tic
print(f"parallel {time1} tasks {task}")
I have been trying to write a simple python application to implement a worker queue
every webpage I found about threading has some random guy commenting on it, you shouldn't use python threading because this or that, can someone help me out? what is up with Python threading, can I use it or not? if yes which lib? the standard one is good enough?
Python's threads are perfectly viable and useful for many tasks. Since they're implemented with native OS threads, they allow executing blocking system calls and keep "running" simultaneously - by calling the blocking syscall in a separate thread. This is very useful for programs that have to do multiple things at the same time (i.e. GUIs and other event loops) and can even improve performance for IO bound tasks (such as web-scraping).
However, due to the Global Interpreter Lock, which precludes the Python interpreter of actually running more than a single thread simultaneously, if you expect to distribute CPU-intensive code over several CPU cores with threads and improve performance this way, you're out of luck. You can do it with the multiprocessing module, however, which provides an interface similar to threading and distributes work using processes rather than threads.
I should also add that C extensions are not required to be bound by the GIL and many do release it, so C extensions can employ multiple cores by using threads.
So, it all depends on what exactly you need to do.
You shouldn't need to use
threading. 95% of code does not need
threads.
Yes, Python threading is
perfectly valid, it's implemented
through the operating system's native
threads.
Use the standard library
threading module, it's excellent.
GIL should provide you some information on that topic.