We Keep Coding

How are threads different from process in terms of how they are executed on hardware level?

I was wondering how the threads are executed on hardware level, like a process would run on a single processing core and make a context switch on the processor and the MMU in order to switch between processes. How do threads switch? Secondly when we create/spawn a new thread will it be seen as a new process would for the processor and be scheduled as a process would?
Also when should one use threads and when a new process?
I know I probably am sounding dumb right now, that's because I have massive gaps in my knowledge that I would like fill. Thanks in advance for taking the time and explaining things to me. :)

There are a few different methods for concurrency. The threading module creates threads within the same Python process and switches between them, this means they're not really running at the same time. The same happens with the Asyncio module, however this has the additional feature of setting when a thread can be switched.
Then there is the multiprocessing module which creates a separate Python process per thread. This means that the threads will not have access to shared memory but can mean that the processes run on different CPU cores and therefore can provide a performance improvement for CPU bound tasks.
Regarding when to use new threads a good rule of thumb would be:
For I/O bound problems, use threading or async I/O. This is because you're waiting on responses from something external, like a database or browser, and this waiting time can instead be filled by another thread running it's task.
For CPU bound problems use multiprocessing. This can run multiple Python processes on separate cores at the same time.
Disclaimer: Threading is not always a solution and you should first determine whether it is necessary and then look to implement the solution.

Think of it this way: "a thread is part of a process."
A "process" owns resources such as memory, open file-handles and network ports, and so on. All of these resources are then available to every "thread" which the process owns. (By definition, every "process" always contains at least one ("main") "thread.")
CPUs and cores, then, execute these "threads," in the context of the "process" which they belong to.
On a multi-CPU/multi-core system, it is therefore possible that more than one thread belonging to a particular process really is executing in parallel. Although you can never be sure.
Also: in the context of an interpreter-based programming language system like Python, the actual situation is a little bit more complicated "behind the scenes," because the Python interpreter context does exist and will be seen by all of the Python threads. This does add a slight amount of additional overhead so that it all "just works."

On the OS level, threads are units of execution that share the same resources (memory, file descriptors, etc). Groups of threads that belong to different processes are isolated from each other, can't access resources across the process boundary. You can think of a "just process" as a single thread, not unlike any other thread.
OS threads are scheduled like you would expect: if there are several cores, they can run in parallel; if there are more threads / processes ready to run than there are cores, some threads get preempted after some time, paused, and another thread has a chance to run on that core.
In Python, though, the difference between threads (threading module) and processes (multiproceessing module) is drastic.
Python runs in a VM. Threads run within that VM. Objects within the VM are reference-counted, and also are unsafe to concurrently modify. So OS thread scheduling which can preempt one thread in the middle of a VM instruction modifying an object, and give control to another object that accesses the same object, will result in corruption.
This is why the global interpreter lock aka GIL exists. It basically prevents any computational parallelism between Python "threads": only one thread can proceed at a time, no matter how many CPU cores you have. Python threads are only good for waiting for I/O.
Unlike that, multiprocessing runs a parallel VM (Python interpreter) and shares select pieces of data with it in a safe way (by copying, or using shared memory). Such parallel processes can run in parallel and utilize multiple CPU cores.
In short: Python threads ≠ OS threads.

Concurrency and race condition [duplicate]

Does the presence of python GIL imply that in python multi threading the same operation is not so different from repeating it in a single thread?.
For example, If I need to upload two files, what is the advantage of doing them in two threads instead of uploading them one after another?.
I tried a big math operation in both ways. But they seem to take almost equal time to complete.
This seems to be unclear to me. Can someone help me on this?.
Thanks.

Python's threads get a slightly worse rap than they deserve. There are three (well, 2.5) cases where they actually get you benefits:
If non-Python code (e.g. a C library, the kernel, etc.) is running, other Python threads can continue executing. It's only pure Python code that can't run in two threads at once. So if you're doing disk or network I/O, threads can indeed buy you something, as most of the time is spent outside of Python itself.
The GIL is not actually part of Python, it's an implementation detail of CPython (the "reference" implementation that the core Python devs work on, and that you usually get if you just run "python" on your Linux box or something.
Jython, IronPython, and any other reimplementations of Python generally do not have a GIL, and multiple pure-Python threads can execute simultaneously.
The 0.5 case: Even if you're entirely pure-Python and see little or no performance benefit from threading, some problems are really convenient in terms of developer time and difficulty to solve with threads. This depends in part on the developer, too, of course.

It really depends on the library you're using. The GIL is meant to prevent Python objects and its internal data structures to be changed at the same time. If you're doing an upload, the library you use to do the actual upload might release the GIL while it's waiting for the actual HTTP request to complete (I would assume that is the case with the HTTP modules in the standard library, but I didn't check).
As a side note, if you really want to have things running in parallel, just use multiple processes. It will save you a lot of trouble and you'll end up with better code (more robust, more scalable, and most probably better structured).

It depends on the native code module that's executing. Native modules can release the GIL and then go off and do their own thing allowing another thread to lock the GIL. The GIL is normally held while code, both python and native, are operating on python objects. If you want more detail you'll probably need to go and read quite a bit about it. :)
See:
What is a global interpreter lock (GIL)? and Thread State and the Global Interpreter Lock

Multithreading is a concept where two are more tasks need be completed simultaneously, for example, I have word processor in this application there are N numbers of a parallel task have to work. Like listening to keyboard, formatting input text, sending a formatted text to display unit. In this context with sequential processing, it is time-consuming and one task has to wait till the next task completion. So we put these tasks in threads and simultaneously complete the task. Three threads are always up and waiting for the inputs to arrive, then take that input and produce the output simultaneously.
So multi-threading works faster if we have multi-core and processors. But in reality with single processors, threads will work one after the other, but we feel it's executing with greater speed, Actually, one instruction executes at a time and a processor can execute billions of instructions at a time. So the computer creates illusion that multi-task or thread working parallel. It just an illusion.

Python threads all executing on a single core

I have a Python program that spawns many threads, runs 4 at a time, and each performs an expensive operation. Pseudocode:
for object in list:
t = Thread(target=process, args=(object))
# if fewer than 4 threads are currently running, t.start(). Otherwise, add t to queue
But when the program is run, Activity Monitor in OS X shows that 1 of the 4 logical cores is at 100% and the others are at nearly 0. Obviously I can't force the OS to do anything but I've never had to pay attention to performance in multi-threaded code like this before so I was wondering if I'm just missing or misunderstanding something.
Thanks.

Note that in many cases (and virtually all cases where your "expensive operation" is a calculation implemented in Python), multiple threads will not actually run concurrently due to Python's Global Interpreter Lock (GIL).
The GIL is an interpreter-level lock.
This lock prevents execution of
multiple threads at once in the Python
interpreter. Each thread that wants to
run must wait for the GIL to be
released by the other thread, which
means your multi-threaded Python
application is essentially single
threaded, right? Yes. Not exactly.
Sort of.
CPython uses what’s called “operating
system” threads under the covers,
which is to say each time a request to
make a new thread is made, the
interpreter actually calls into the
operating system’s libraries and
kernel to generate a new thread. This
is the same as Java, for example. So
in memory you really do have multiple
threads and normally the operating
system controls which thread is
scheduled to run. On a multiple
processor machine, this means you
could have many threads spread across
multiple processors, all happily
chugging away doing work.
However, while CPython does use
operating system threads (in theory
allowing multiple threads to execute
within the interpreter
simultaneously), the interpreter also
forces the GIL to be acquired by a
thread before it can access the
interpreter and stack and can modify
Python objects in memory all
willy-nilly. The latter point is why
the GIL exists: The GIL prevents
simultaneous access to Python objects
by multiple threads. But this does not
save you (as illustrated by the Bank
example) from being a lock-sensitive
creature; you don’t get a free ride.
The GIL is there to protect the
interpreters memory, not your sanity.
See the Global Interpreter Lock section of Jesse Noller's post for more details.
To get around this problem, check out Python's multiprocessing module.
multiple processes (with judicious use
of IPC) are[...] a much better
approach to writing apps for multi-CPU
boxes than threads.
-- Guido van Rossum (creator of Python)
Edit based on a comment from #spinkus:
If Python can't run multiple threads simultaneously, then why have threading at all?
Threads can still be very useful in Python when doing simultaneous operations that do not need to modify the interpreter's state. This includes many (most?) long-running function calls that are not in-Python calculations, such as I/O (file access or network requests)) and [calculations on Numpy arrays][6]. These operations release the GIL while waiting for a result, allowing the program to continue executing. Then, once the result is received, the thread must re-acquire the GIL in order to use that result in "Python-land"

Python has a Global Interpreter Lock, which can prevent threads of interpreted code from being processed concurrently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Interpreter_Lock
http://wiki.python.org/moin/GlobalInterpreterLock
For ways to get around this, try the multiprocessing module, as advised here:
Does running separate python processes avoid the GIL?

AFAIK, in CPython the Global Interpreter Lock means that there can't be more than one block of Python code being run at any one time. Although this does not really affect anything in a single processor/single-core machine, on a mulitcore machine it means you have effectively only one thread running at any one time - causing all the other core to be idle.

Should I use fork or threads?

In my script, I have a function foo which basically uses pynotify to notify user about something repeatedly after a time interval say 15 minutes.
def foo:
while True:
"""Does something"""
time.sleep(900)
My main script has to interact with user & does all other things so I just cant call the foo() function. directly.
Whats the better way of doing it and why?
Using fork or threads?

I won't tell you which one to use, but here are some of the advantages of each:
Threads can start more quickly than processes, and threads use fewer operating system resources than processes, including memory, file handles, etc. Threads also give you the option of communicating through shared variables (although many would say this is more of a disadvantage than an advantage - See below).
Processes each have their own separate memory and variables, which means that processes generally communicate by sending messages to each other. This is much easier to do correctly than having threads communicate via shared memory. Processes can also run truly concurrently, so that if you have multiple CPU cores, you can keep all of them busy using processes. In Python*, the global interpreter lock prevents threads from making much use of more than a single core.
* - That is, CPython, which the implementation of Python that you get if you go to http://python.org and download Python. Other Python implementations (such as Jython) do not necessarily prohibit Python from running threads on multiple CPUs simultaneously. Thanks to #EOL for the clarification.

For these kinds of problems, neither threads nor forked processes seem the right approach. If all you want to do is to once every 15 minutes notify the user of something, why not use an event loop like GLib's or Twisted's reactor ? This allows you to schedule operations that should run once in a while, and get on with the rest of your program.

Using multiple processes lets you exploit multiple CPU cores at the same time, while, in CPython, using threads doesn't (threads take turns using a single CPU core) -- so, if you have CPU intensive work and absolutely want to use threads, you should consider Jython or IronPython; with CPython, this consideration is often enough to sway the choice towards the multiprocessing module and away from the threading one (they offer pretty similar interfaces, because multiprocessing was designed to be easily put in place in lieu of threading).
Net of this crucial consideration, threads might often be a better choice (performance-wise) on Windows (where making a new process is a heavy task), but less often on Unix variants (Linux, BSD versions, OpenSolaris, MacOSX, ...), since making a new process is faster there (but if you're using IronPython or Jython, you should check, on the platforms you care about, that this still applies in the virtual machines in question -- CLR with either .NET or Mono for IronPython, your JVM of choice for Jython).

Processes are much simpler. Just turn them loose and let the OS handle it.
Also, processes are often much more efficient. Processes do not share a common pool of I/O resources; they are completely independent.
Python's subprocess.Popen handles everything.

If by fork you mean os.fork then I would avoid using that. It is not cross platform and too low level - you would need to implement communication between the processes yourself.
If you want to use a separate process then use either the subprocess module or if you are on Python 2.6 or later the new multiprocessing module. This has a very similar API to the threading module, so you could start off using threads and then easily switch to processes, or vice-versa.
For what you want to do I think I would use threads, unless """does something""" is CPU intensive and you want to take advantage of multiple cores, which I doubt in this particular case.

How do threads work in Python, and what are common Python-threading specific pitfalls?

I've been trying to wrap my head around how threads work in Python, and it's hard to find good information on how they operate. I may just be missing a link or something, but it seems like the official documentation isn't very thorough on the subject, and I haven't been able to find a good write-up.
From what I can tell, only one thread can be running at once, and the active thread switches every 10 instructions or so?
Where is there a good explanation, or can you provide one? It would also be very nice to be aware of common problems that you run into while using threads with Python.

Yes, because of the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) there can only run one thread at a time. Here are some links with some insights about this:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=214235
http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/guido-is-right-to-leave-the-gil-in-python-not-for-multicore-but-for-utility-computing/
From the last link an interesting quote:
Let me explain what all that means.
Threads run inside the same virtual
machine, and hence run on the same
physical machine. Processes can run
on the same physical machine or in
another physical machine. If you
architect your application around
threads, you’ve done nothing to access
multiple machines. So, you can scale
to as many cores are on the single
machine (which will be quite a few
over time), but to really reach web
scales, you’ll need to solve the
multiple machine problem anyway.
If you want to use multi core, pyprocessing defines an process based API to do real parallelization. The PEP also includes some interesting benchmarks.

Python's a fairly easy language to thread in, but there are caveats. The biggest thing you need to know about is the Global Interpreter Lock. This allows only one thread to access the interpreter. This means two things: 1) you rarely ever find yourself using a lock statement in python and 2) if you want to take advantage of multi-processor systems, you have to use separate processes. EDIT: I should also point out that you can put some of the code in C/C++ if you want to get around the GIL as well.
Thus, you need to re-consider why you want to use threads. If you want to parallelize your app to take advantage of dual-core architecture, you need to consider breaking your app up into multiple processes.
If you want to improve responsiveness, you should CONSIDER using threads. There are other alternatives though, namely microthreading. There are also some frameworks that you should look into:
stackless python
greenlets
gevent
monocle

Below is a basic threading sample. It will spawn 20 threads; each thread will output its thread number. Run it and observe the order in which they print.
import threading
class Foo (threading.Thread):
def __init__(self,x):
self.__x = x
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
def run (self):
print str(self.__x)
for x in xrange(20):
Foo(x).start()
As you have hinted at Python threads are implemented through time-slicing. This is how they get the "parallel" effect.
In my example my Foo class extends thread, I then implement the run method, which is where the code that you would like to run in a thread goes. To start the thread you call start() on the thread object, which will automatically invoke the run method...
Of course, this is just the very basics. You will eventually want to learn about semaphores, mutexes, and locks for thread synchronization and message passing.

Note: wherever I mention thread i mean specifically threads in python until explicitly stated.
Threads work a little differently in python if you are coming from C/C++ background. In python, Only one thread can be in running state at a given time.This means Threads in python cannot truly leverage the power of multiple processing cores since by design it's not possible for threads to run parallelly on multiple cores.
As the memory management in python is not thread-safe each thread require an exclusive access to data structures in python interpreter.This exclusive access is acquired by a mechanism called GIL ( global interpretr lock ).
Why does python use GIL?
In order to prevent multiple threads from accessing interpreter state simultaneously and corrupting the interpreter state.
The idea is whenever a thread is being executed (even if it's the main thread), a GIL is acquired and after some predefined interval of time the
GIL is released by the current thread and reacquired by some other thread( if any).
Why not simply remove GIL?
It is not that its impossible to remove GIL, its just that in prcoess of doing so we end up putting mutiple locks inside interpreter in order to serialize access, which makes even a single threaded application less performant.
so the cost of removing GIL is paid off by reduced performance of a single threaded application, which is never desired.
So when does thread switching occurs in python?
Thread switch occurs when GIL is released.So when is GIL Released?
There are two scenarios to take into consideration.
If a Thread is doing CPU Bound operations(Ex image processing).
In Older versions of python , Thread switching used to occur after a fixed no of python instructions.It was by default set to 100.It turned out that its not a very good policy to decide when switching should occur since the time spent executing a single instruction can
very wildly from millisecond to even a second.Therefore releasing GIL after every 100 instructions regardless of the time they take to execute is a poor policy.
In new versions instead of using instruction count as a metric to switch thread , a configurable time interval is used.
The default switch interval is 5 milliseconds.you can get the current switch interval using sys.getswitchinterval().
This can be altered using sys.setswitchinterval()
If a Thread is doing some IO Bound Operations(Ex filesystem access or
network IO)
GIL is release whenever the thread is waiting for some for IO operation to get completed.
Which thread to switch to next?
The interpreter doesn’t have its own scheduler.which thread becomes scheduled at the end of the interval is the operating system’s decision. .

Use threads in python if the individual workers are doing I/O bound operations. If you are trying to scale across multiple cores on a machine either find a good IPC framework for python or pick a different language.

One easy solution to the GIL is the multiprocessing module. It can be used as a drop in replacement to the threading module but uses multiple Interpreter processes instead of threads. Because of this there is a little more overhead than plain threading for simple things but it gives you the advantage of real parallelization if you need it.
It also easily scales to multiple physical machines.
If you need truly large scale parallelization than I would look further but if you just want to scale to all the cores of one computer or a few different ones without all the work that would go into implementing a more comprehensive framework, than this is for you.

Try to remember that the GIL is set to poll around every so often in order to do show the appearance of multiple tasks. This setting can be fine tuned, but I offer the suggestion that there should be work that the threads are doing or lots of context switches are going to cause problems.
I would go so far as to suggest multiple parents on processors and try to keep like jobs on the same core(s).