We Keep Coding

Why is my multithreading program only actually using a single thread?

I have realized that my multithreading program isn't doing what I think its doing. The following is a MWE of my strategy. In essence I'm creating nThreads threads but only actually using one of them. Could somebody help me understand my mistake and how to fix it?
import threading
import queue
NPerThread = 100
nThreads = 4
def worker(q: queue.Queue, oq: queue.Queue):
while True:
l = []
threadIData = q.get(block=True)
for i in range(threadIData["N"]):
l.append(f"hello {i} from thread {threading.current_thread().name}")
oq.put(l)
q.task_done()
threadData = [{} for i in range(nThreads)]
inputQ = queue.Queue()
outputQ = queue.Queue()
for threadI in range(nThreads):
threadData[threadI]["thread"] = threading.Thread(
target=worker, args=(inputQ, outputQ),
name=f"WorkerThread{threadI}"
)
threadData[threadI]["N"] = NPerThread
threadData[threadI]["thread"].setDaemon(True)
threadData[threadI]["thread"].start()
for threadI in range(nThreads):
# start and end are in units of 8 bytes.
inputQ.put(threadData[threadI])
inputQ.join()
outData = [None] * nThreads
count = 0
while not outputQ.empty():
outData[count] = outputQ.get()
count += 1
for i in outData:
assert len(i) == NPerThread
print(len(i))
print(outData)
edit
I only actually realised that I had made this mistake after profiling. Here's the output, for information:

In your sample program, the worker function is just executing so fast that the same thread is able to dequeue every item. If you add a time.sleep(1) call to it, you'll see other threads pick up some of the work.
However, it is important to understand if threads are the right choice for your real application, which presumably is doing actual work in the worker threads. As #jrbergen pointed out, because of the GIL, only one thread can execute Python bytecode at a time, so if your worker functions are executing CPU-bound Python code (meaning not doing blocking I/O or calling a library that releases the GIL), you're not going to get a performance benefit from threads. You'd need to use processes instead in that case.
I'll also note that you may want to use concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor or multiprocessing.dummy.ThreadPool for an out-of-the-box thread pool implementation, rather than creating your own.

When running two functions simultaneously how to return the first result and use it for further processes

So I have two webscrapers that collect data from two different sources. I am running them both simultaneously to collect a specific piece of data (e.g. covid numbers).
When one of the functions finds data I want to use that data without waiting for the other one to finish.
So far I tried the multiprocessing - pool module and to return the results with get() but by definition I have to wait for both get() to finish before I can continue with my code. My goal is to have the code as simple and as short as possible.
My webscraper functions can be run with arguments and return a result if found. It is also possible to modify them.
The code I have so far which waits for both get() to finish.
from multiprocessing import Pool
from scraper1 import main_1
from scraper2 import main_2
from twitter import post_tweet
if __name__ == '__main__':
with Pool(processes=2) as pool:
r1 = pool.apply_async(main_1, ('www.website1.com','June'))
r2 = pool.apply_async(main_2, ())
data = r1.get()
data2 = r2.get()
post_tweet("New data is {}".format(data))
post_tweet("New data is {}".format(data2))
From here I have seen that threading might be a better option since webscraping involves a lot of waiting and only little parsing but I am not sure how I would implement this.
I think the solution is fairly easy but I have been searching and trying different things all day without much success so I think I will just ask here. (I only started programming 2 months ago)

As always there are many ways to accomplish this task.
you have already mentioned using a Queue:
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue
from scraper1 import main_1
from scraper2 import main_2
def simple_worker(target, args, ret_q):
ret_q.put(target(*args)) # mp.Queue has it's own mutex so we don't need to worry about concurrent read/write
if __name__ == "__main__":
q = Queue()
p1 = Process(target=simple_worker, args=(main_1, ('www.website1.com','June'), q))
p2 = Process(target=simple_worker, args=(main_2, ('www.website2.com','July'), q))
p1.start()
p2.start()
first_result = q.get()
do_stuff(first_result)
#don't forget to get() the second result before you quit. It's not a good idea to
#leave things in a Queue and just assume it will be properly cleaned up at exit.
second_result = q.get()
p1.join()
p2.join()
You could also still use a Pool by using imap_unordered and just taking the first result:
from multiprocessing import Pool
from scraper1 import main_1
from scraper2 import main_2
def simple_worker2(args):
target, arglist = args #unpack args
return target(*arglist)
if __name__ == "__main__":
tasks = ((main_1, ('www.website1.com','June')),
(main_2, ('www.website2.com','July')))
with Pool() as p: #Pool context manager handles worker cleanup (your target function may however be interrupted at any point if the pool exits before a task is complete
for result in p.imap_unordered(simple_worker2, tasks, chunksize=1):
do_stuff(result)
break #don't bother with further results

I've seen people use queues in such cases: create one and pass it to both parsers so that they put their results in queue instead of returning them. Then do a blocking pop on the queue to retrieve the first available result.
I have seen that threading might be a better option
Almost true but not quite. I'd say that asyncio and async-based libraries is much better than both threading and multiprocessing when we're talking about code with a lot of blocking I/O. If it's applicable in your case, I'd recommend rewriting both your parsers in async.

Timing a multiprocessing script

I've stumbled across a weird timing issue while using the multiprocessing module.
Consider the following scenario. I have functions like this:
import multiprocessing as mp
def workerfunc(x):
# timehook 3
# something with x
# timehook 4
def outer():
# do something
mygen = ... (some generator expression)
pool = mp.Pool(processes=8)
# time hook 1
result = [pool.apply(workerfunc, args=(x,)) for x in mygen]
# time hook 2
if __name__ == '__main__':
outer()
I am utilizing the time module to get an arbitrary feeling for how long my functions run. I successfully create 8 separate processes, which terminate without error. The longest time for a worker to finish is about 130 ms (measured between timehook 3 and 4).
I expected (as they are running in parallel) that the time between hook 1 and 2 will be approximately the same. Surprisingly, I get 600 ms as a result.
My machine has 32 cores and should be able to handle this easily. Can anybody give me a hint where this difference in time comes from?
Thanks!

You are using pool.apply which is blocking. Use pool.apply_async instead and then the function calls will all run in parallel, and each will return an AsyncResult object immediately. You can use this object to check when the processes are done and then retrieve the results using this object also.

Since you are using multiprocessing and not multithreading your performance issue is not related to GIL (Python's Global Interpreter Lock).
I've found an interesting link explaining this with an example, you can find it in the bottom of this answer.
The GIL does not prevent a process from running on a different
processor of a machine. It simply only allows one thread to run at
once within the interpreter.
So multiprocessing not multithreading will allow you to achieve true
concurrency.
Lets understand this all through some benchmarking because only that
will lead you to believe what is said above. And yes, that should be
the way to learn — experience it rather than just read it or
understand it. Because if you experienced something, no amount of
argument can convince you for the opposing thoughts.
import random
from threading import Thread
from multiprocessing import Process
size = 10000000 # Number of random numbers to add to list
threads = 2 # Number of threads to create
my_list = []
for i in xrange(0,threads):
my_list.append([])
def func(count, mylist):
for i in range(count):
mylist.append(random.random())
def multithreaded():
jobs = []
for i in xrange(0, threads):
thread = Thread(target=func,args=(size,my_list[i]))
jobs.append(thread)
# Start the threads
for j in jobs:
j.start()
# Ensure all of the threads have finished
for j in jobs:
j.join()
def simple():
for i in xrange(0, threads):
func(size,my_list[i])
def multiprocessed():
processes = []
for i in xrange(0, threads):
p = Process(target=func,args=(size,my_list[i]))
processes.append(p)
# Start the processes
for p in processes:
p.start()
# Ensure all processes have finished execution
for p in processes:
p.join()
if __name__ == "__main__":
multithreaded()
#simple()
#multiprocessed()
Additional information
Here you can find the source of this information and a more detailed technical explanation (bonus: there's also Guido Van Rossum quotes in it :) )

Why my parallel code is slower than the sequential

I am trying to implement an online recursive parallel algorithm, which is highly parallelizable. My problem is that my python implementation does not work as I want. I have two 2D matrices where I want to update recursively every column every time a new observation is observed at time-step t.
My parallel code is like this
def apply_async(t):
worker = mp.Pool(processes = 4)
for i in range(4):
X[:,i,np.newaxis], b[:,i,np.newaxis] = worker.apply_async(OULtraining, args=(train[t,i], X[:,i,np.newaxis], b[:,i,np.newaxis])).get()
worker.close()
worker.join()
for t in range(p,T):
count = 0
for l in range(p):
for k in range(4):
gn[count]=train[t-l-1,k]
count+=1
G = G*v + gn # gn.T
Gt = (1/(t-p+1))*G
if __name__ == '__main__':
apply_async(t)
The two matrices are X and b. I want to replace directly on master's memory as each process updates recursively only one specific column of the matrices.
Why this implementation is slower than the sequential?
Is there any way to resume the process every time-step rather than killing them and create them again? Could this be the reason it is slower?

The reason is, your program is in practice sequential. This is an example code snippet that is from parallelism standpoint identical to yours:
from multiprocessing import Pool
from time import sleep
def gwork( qq):
print (qq)
sleep(1)
return 42
p = Pool(processes=4)
for q in range(1, 10):
p.apply_async(gwork, args=(q,)).get()
p.close()
p.join()
Run this and you shall notice numbers 1-9 appearing exactly once in a second. Why is this? The reason is your .get(). This means every call to apply_async will in practice block in get() until a result is available. It will submit one task, wait a second emulating processing delay, then return the result, after which another task is submitted to your pool. This means there is no parallel execution ongoing at all.
Try replacing the pool management part with this:
results = []
for q in range(1, 10):
res = p.apply_async(gwork, args=(q,))
results.append(res)
p.close()
p.join()
for r in results:
print (r.get())
You can now see parallelism at work, as four of your tasks are now processed simultaneously. Your loop does not block in get, as get is moved out of the loop and results are received only when they are ready.
NB: If your arguments to your worker or the return values from them are large data structures, you will lose some performance. In practice Python implements these as queues, and transmitting a lot of data via a queue is slow on relative terms compared to getting an in-memory copy of a data structure when a subprocess is forked.

Python multiprocessing with an updating queue and an output queue

How can I script a Python multiprocess that uses two Queues as these ones?:
one as a working queue that starts with some data and that, depending on conditions of the functions to be parallelized, receives further tasks on the fly,
another that gathers results and is used to write down the result after processing finishes.
I basically need to put some more tasks in the working queue depending on what I found in its initial items. The example I post below is silly (I could transform the item as I like and put it directly in the output Queue), but its mechanics are clear and reflect part of the concept I need to develop.
Hereby my attempt:
import multiprocessing as mp
def worker(working_queue, output_queue):
item = working_queue.get() #I take an item from the working queue
if item % 2 == 0:
output_queue.put(item**2) # If I like it, I do something with it and conserve the result.
else:
working_queue.put(item+1) # If there is something missing, I do something with it and leave the result in the working queue
if __name__ == '__main__':
static_input = range(100)
working_q = mp.Queue()
output_q = mp.Queue()
for i in static_input:
working_q.put(i)
processes = [mp.Process(target=worker,args=(working_q, output_q)) for i in range(mp.cpu_count())] #I am running as many processes as CPU my machine has (is this wise?).
for proc in processes:
proc.start()
for proc in processes:
proc.join()
for result in iter(output_q.get, None):
print result #alternatively, I would like to (c)pickle.dump this, but I am not sure if it is possible.
This does not end nor print any result.
At the end of the whole process I would like to ensure that the working queue is empty, and that all the parallel functions have finished writing to the output queue before the later is iterated to take out the results. Do you have suggestions on how to make it work?

The following code achieves the expected results. It follows the suggestions made by #tawmas.
This code allows to use multiple cores in a process that requires that the queue which feeds data to the workers can be updated by them during the processing:
import multiprocessing as mp
def worker(working_queue, output_queue):
while True:
if working_queue.empty() == True:
break #this is the so-called 'poison pill'
else:
picked = working_queue.get()
if picked % 2 == 0:
output_queue.put(picked)
else:
working_queue.put(picked+1)
return
if __name__ == '__main__':
static_input = xrange(100)
working_q = mp.Queue()
output_q = mp.Queue()
results_bank = []
for i in static_input:
working_q.put(i)
processes = [mp.Process(target=worker,args=(working_q, output_q)) for i in range(mp.cpu_count())]
for proc in processes:
proc.start()
for proc in processes:
proc.join()
results_bank = []
while True:
if output_q.empty() == True:
break
results_bank.append(output_q.get_nowait())
print len(results_bank) # length of this list should be equal to static_input, which is the range used to populate the input queue. In other words, this tells whether all the items placed for processing were actually processed.
results_bank.sort()
print results_bank

You have a typo in the line that creates the processes. It should be mp.Process, not mp.process. This is what is causing the exception you get.
Also, you are not looping in your workers, so they actually only consume a single item each from the queue and then exit. Without knowing more about the required logic, it's not easy to give specific advice, but you will probably want to enclose the body of your worker function inside a while True loop and add a condition in the body to exit when the work is done.
Please note that, if you do not add a condition to explicitly exit from the loop, your workers will simply stall forever when the queue is empty. You might consider using the so-called poison pill technique to signal the workers they may exit. You will find an example and some useful discussion in the PyMOTW article on Communication Between processes.
As for the number of processes to use, you will need to benchmark a bit to find what works for you, but, in general, one process per core is a good starting point when your workload is CPU bound. If your workload is IO bound, you might have better results with a higher number of workers.