I've encountered some unexpected behaviour of the python multiprocessing Pool class.
Here are my questions:
1) When does Pool creates its context, which is later used for serialization? The example below runs fine as long as the Pool object is created after the Container definition. If you swap the Pool initializations, serialization error occurs. In my production code I would like to initialize Pool way before defining the container class. Is it possible to refresh Pool "context" or to achieve this in another way.
2) Does Pool have its own load balancing mechanism and if so how does it work?
If I run a similar example on my i7 machine with the pool of 8 processes I get the following results:
- For a light evaluation function Pool favours using only one process for computation. It creates 8 processes as requested but for most of the time only one is used (I printed the pid from inside and also see this in htop).
- For a heavy evaluation function the behaviour is as expected. It uses all 8 processes equally.
3) When using Pool I always see 4 more processes that I requested (i.e. for Pool(processes=2) I see 6 new processes). What is their role?
I use Linux with Python 2.7.2
from multiprocessing import Pool
from datetime import datetime
POWER = 10
def eval_power(container):
for power in xrange(2, POWER):
container.val **= power
return container
#processes = Pool(processes=2)
class Container(object):
def __init__(self, value):
self.val = value
processes = Pool(processes=2)
if __name__ == "__main__":
cont = [Container(foo) for foo in xrange(20)]
then = datetime.now()
processes.map(eval_power, cont)
now = datetime.now()
print "Eval time:", now - then
EDIT - TO BAKURIU
1) I was afraid that that's the case.
2) I don't understand what the linux scheduler has to do with python assigning computations to processes. My situation can be ilustrated by the example below:
from multiprocessing import Pool
from os import getpid
from collections import Counter
def light_func(ind):
return getpid()
def heavy_func(ind):
for foo in xrange(1000000):
ind += foo
return getpid()
if __name__ == "__main__":
list_ = range(100)
pool = Pool(4)
l_func = pool.map(light_func, list_)
h_func = pool.map(heavy_func, list_)
print "light func:", Counter(l_func)
print "heavy func:", Counter(h_func)
On my i5 machine (4 threads) I get the following results:
light func: Counter({2967: 100})
heavy func: Counter({2969: 28, 2967: 28, 2968: 23, 2970: 21})
It seems that the situation is as I've described it. However I still don't understand why python does it this way. My guess would be that it tries to minimise communication expenses, but still the mechanism which it uses for load balancing is unknown. The documentation isn't very helpful either, the multiprocessing module is very poorly documented.
3) If I run the above code I get 4 more processes as described before. The screen comes from htop: http://i.stack.imgur.com/PldmM.png
The Pool object creates the subprocesses during the call to __init__ hence you must define Container before. By the way, I wouldn't include all the code in a single file but use a module to implement the Container and other utilities and write a small file that launches the main program.
The Pool does exactly what is described in the documentation. In particular it has no control over the scheduling of the processes hence what you see is what Linux's scheduler thinks it is right. For small computations they take so little time that the scheduler doesn't bother parallelizing them(this probably have better performances due to core affinity etc.)
Could you show this with an example and what you see in the task manager? I think they may be the processes that handle the queue inside the Pool, but I'm not sure. On my machine I can see only the main process plus the two subprocesses.
Update on point 2:
The Pool object simply puts the tasks into a queue, and the child processes get the arguments from this queue. If a process takes almost no time to execute an object, than Linux scheduler let the process execute more time(hence consuming more items from the queue). If the execution takes much time then this scheduler will change processes and thus the other child processes are also executed.
In your case a single process is consuming all items because the computation take so little time that before the other child processes are ready it has already finished all items.
As I said, Pool doesn't do anything about balancing the work of the subprocesses. It's simply a queue and a bunch of workers, the pool puts items in the queue and the processes get the items and compute the results. AFAIK the only thing that it does to control the queue is putting a certain number of tasks in a single item in the queue(see the documentation) but there is no guarantee about which process will grab which task. Everything else is left to the OS.
On my machine the results are less extreme. Two processes get about twice the number of calls than the other two for the light computation, while for the heavy one all have more or less the same number of items processed. Probably on different OSes and/or hardware we would obtain even different results.
Related
I need to rewrite a simple for loop with MPI cause each step is time consuming. Lets say I have a list including several np.array and I want to apply some computation on each array. For example:
def myFun(x):
return x+2 # simple example, the real one would be complicated
dat = [np.random.rand(3,2), np.random.rand(3,2),np.random.rand(3,2),np.random.rand(3,2)] # real data would be much larger
result = []
for item in dat:
result.append(myFun(item))
Instead of using the simple for loop above, I want to use MPI to run the 'for loop' part of the above code in parallel with 24 different nodes also I want the order of items in the result list follow the same with dat list.
Note The data is read from other file which can be treated 'fix' for each processor.
I haven't use mpi before, so this stucks me for a while.
For simplicity let us assume that the master process (the process with rank = 0) is the one that will read the entire file from disk into memory. This problem can be solved only knowing about the following MPI routines, Get_size(), Get_rank(), scatter, and gather.
The Get_size():
Returns the number of processes in the communicator. It will return
the same number to every process.
The Get_rank():
Determines the rank of the calling process in the communicator.
In MPI to each process is assigned a rank, that varies from 0 to N - 1, where N is the total number of processes running.
The scatter:
MPI_Scatter involves a designated root process sending data to all
processes in a communicator. The primary difference between MPI_Bcast
and MPI_Scatter is small but important. MPI_Bcast sends the same piece
of data to all processes while MPI_Scatter sends chunks of an array to
different processes.
and the gather:
MPI_Gather is the inverse of MPI_Scatter. Instead of spreading
elements from one process to many processes, MPI_Gather takes elements
from many processes and gathers them to one single process.
Obviously, you should first follow a tutorial and read the MPI documentation to understand its parallel programming model, and its routines. Otherwise, you will find it very hard to understand how it all works. That being said your code could look like the following:
from mpi4py import MPI
def myFun(x):
return x+2 # simple example, the real one would be complicated
comm = MPI.COMM_WORLD
rank = comm.Get_rank() # get your process ID
data = # init the data
if rank == 0: # The master is the only process that reads the file
data = # something read from file
# Divide the data among processes
data = comm.scatter(data, root=0)
result = []
for item in data:
result.append(myFun(item))
# Send the results back to the master processes
newData = comm.gather(result,root=0)
In this way, each process will work (in parallel) in only a certain chunk of the data. After having finish their work, each process send back to the master process their data chunks (i.e., comm.gather(result,root=0)). This is just a toy example, now it is up to you to improved according to your testing environment and code.
You could either go the low-level MPI way as shown in the answer of #dreamcrash or you could go for a more Pythonic solution that uses an executor pool very similar to the one provided by the standard Python multiprocessing module.
First, you need to turn your code into a more functional-style one by noticing that you are actually doing a map operation, which applies myFun to each element of dat:
def myFun(x):
return x+2 # simple example, the real one would be complicated
dat = [
np.random.rand(3,2), np.random.rand(3,2), np.random.rand(3,2), np.random.rand(3,2)
] # real data would be much larger
result = map(myFun, dat)
map here runs sequentially in one Python interpreter process.
To run that map in parallel with the multiprocessing module, you only need to instantiate a Pool object and then call its map() method in place of the Python map() function:
from multiprocessing import Pool
def myFun(x):
return x+2 # simple example, the real one would be complicated
if __name__ == '__main__':
dat = [
np.random.rand(3,2), np.random.rand(3,2), np.random.rand(3,2), np.random.rand(3,2)
] # real data would be much larger
with Pool() as pool:
result = pool.map(myFun, dat)
Here, Pool() creates a new executor pool with as many interpreter processes as there are logical CPUs as seen by the OS. Calling the map() method of the pool runs the mapping in parallel by sending items to the different processes in the pool and waiting for completion. Since the worker processes import the Python script as a module, it is important to have the code that was previously at the top level moved under the if __name__ == '__main__': conditional so it doesn't run in the workers too.
Using multiprocessing.Pool() is very convenient because it requires only a slight change of the original code and the module handles for you all the work scheduling and the required data movement to and from the worker processes. The problem with multiprocessing is that it only works on a single host. Fortunately, mpi4py provides a similar interface through the mpi4py.futures.MPIPoolExecutor class:
from mpi4py.futures import MPIPoolExecutor
def myFun(x):
return x+2 # simple example, the real one would be complicated
if __name__ == '__main__':
dat = [
np.random.rand(3,2), np.random.rand(3,2), np.random.rand(3,2), np.random.rand(3,2)
] # real data would be much larger
with MPIPoolExecutor() as pool:
result = pool.map(myFun, dat)
Like with the Pool object from the multiprocessing module, the MPI pool executor handles for you all the work scheduling and data movement.
There are two ways to run the MPI program. The first one starts the script as an MPI singleton and then uses the MPI process control facility to spawn a child MPI job with all the pool workers:
mpiexec -n 1 python program.py
You also need to specify the MPI universe size (the total number of MPI ranks in both the main and all child jobs). The specific way of doing so differs between the implementations, so you need to consult your implementation's manual.
The second option is to launch directly the desired number of MPI ranks and have them execute the mpi4py.futures module itself with the script name as argument:
mpiexec -n 24 python -m mpi4py.futures program.py
Keep in mind that no mater which way you launch the script one MPI rank will be reserved for the controller and will not be running mapping tasks. You are aiming at running on 24 hosts, so you should be having plenty of CPU cores and can probably afford to have one reserved. Or you could instruct MPI to oversubscribe the first host with one more rank.
One thing to note with both multiprocessing.Pool and mpi4py.futures.MPIPoolExecutor is that the map() method guarantees the order of the items in the output array, but it doesn't guarantee the order in which the different items are evaluated. This shouldn't be a problem in most cases.
A word of advise. If your data is actually chunks read from a file, you may be tempted to do something like this:
if __name__ == '__main__':
data = read_chunks()
with MPIPoolExecutor() as p:
result = p.map(myFun, data)
Don't do that. Instead, if possible, e.g., if enabled by the presence of a shared (and hopefully parallel) filesytem, delegate the reading to the workers:
NUM_CHUNKS = 100
def myFun(chunk_num):
# You may need to pass the value of NUM_CHUNKS to read_chunk()
# for it to be able to seek to the right position in the file
data = read_chunk(NUM_CHUNKS, chunk_num)
return ...
if __name__ == '__main__':
chunk_nums = range(NUM_CHUNKS) # 100 chunks
with MPIPoolExecutor() as p:
result = p.map(myFun, chunk_nums)
I am using torch.multiprocessing.Pool to speed up my NN in inference, like this:
import torch.multiprocessing as mp
mp = torch.multiprocessing.get_context('forkserver')
def parallel_predict(predict_func, sequences, args):
predicted_cluster_ids = []
pool = mp.Pool(args.num_workers, maxtasksperchild=1)
out = pool.imap(
func=functools.partial(predict_func, args=args),
iterable=sequences,
chunksize=1)
for item in tqdm(out, total=len(sequences), ncols=85):
predicted_cluster_ids.append(item)
pool.close()
pool.terminate()
pool.join()
return predicted_cluster_ids
Note 1) I am using imap because I want to be able to show a progress bar with tqdm.
Note 2) I tried with both forkserver and spawn but no luck. I cannot use other methods because of how they interact (poorly) with CUDA.
Note 3) I am using maxtasksperchild=1 and chunksize=1 so for each sequence in sequences it spawns a new process.
Note 4) Adding or removing pool.terminate() and pool.join() makes no difference.
Note 5) predict_func is a method of a class I created. I could also pass the whole model to parallel_predict but it does not change anything.
Everything works fine except the fact that after a while I run out of memory on the CPU (while on the GPU everything works as expected). Using htop to monitor memory usage I notice that, for every process I spawn with pool I get a zombie that uses 0.4% of the memory. They don't get cleared, so they keep using space. Still, parallel_predict does return the correct result and the computation goes on. My script is structured in a way that id does validation multiple times so next time parallel_predict is called the zombies add up.
This is what I get in htop:
Usually, these zombies get cleared after ctrl-c but in some rare cases I need to killall.
Is there some way I can force the Pool to close them?
UPDATE:
I tried to kill the zombie processes using this:
def kill(pool):
import multiprocessing
import signal
# stop repopulating new child
pool._state = multiprocessing.pool.TERMINATE
pool._worker_handler._state = multiprocessing.pool.TERMINATE
for p in pool._pool:
os.kill(p.pid, signal.SIGKILL)
# .is_alive() will reap dead process
while any(p.is_alive() for p in pool._pool):
pass
pool.terminate()
But it does not work. It gets stuck at pool.terminate()
UPDATE2:
I tried to use the initializer arg in imap to catch signals like this:
def process_initializer():
def handler(_signal, frame):
print('exiting')
exit(0)
signal.signal(signal.SIGTERM, handler)
def parallel_predict(predict_func, sequences, args):
predicted_cluster_ids = []
with mp.Pool(args.num_workers, initializer=process_initializer, maxtasksperchild=1) as pool:
out = pool.imap(
func=functools.partial(predict_func, args=args),
iterable=sequences,
chunksize=1)
for item in tqdm(out, total=len(sequences), ncols=85):
predicted_cluster_ids.append(item)
for p in pool._pool:
os.kill(p.pid, signal.SIGTERM)
pool.close()
pool.terminate()
pool.join()
return predicted_cluster_ids
but again it does not free memory.
Ok, I have more insights to share with you. Indeed this is not a bug, it is actually the "supposed" behavior for the multiprocessing module in Python (torch.multiprocessing wraps it). What happens is that, although the Pool terminates all the processes, the memory is not released (given back to the OS). This is also stated in the documentation, though in a very confusing way.
In the documentation it says that
Worker processes within a Pool typically live for the complete duration of the Pool’s work queue
but also:
A frequent pattern found in other systems (such as Apache, mod_wsgi, etc) to free resources held by workers is to allow a worker within a pool to complete only a set amount of work before being exiting, being cleaned up and a new process spawned to replace the old one. The maxtasksperchild argument to the Pool exposes this ability to the end user
but the "clean up" does NOT happen.
To make things worse I found this post in which they recommend to use maxtasksperchild=1. This increases the memory leak, because this way the number of zombies goes with the number of data points to be predicted, and since pool.close() does not free memory they add up.
This is very bad if you are using multiprocessing for example in validation. For every validation step I was reinitializing the pool but the memory didn't get freed from the previous iteration.
The SOLUTION here is to move pool = mp.Pool(args.num_workers) outside the training loop, so the pool does not get closed and reopened, and therefore it always reuses the same processes. NOTE: again remember to remove maxtasksperchild=1 and chunksize=1.
I think this should be included in the best practices page.
BTW in my opinion this behavior of the multiprocessing library should be considered as a bug and should be fixed Python side (not Pytorch side)
I have code that makes unique combinations of elements. There are 6 types, and there are about 100 of each. So there are 100^6 combinations. Each combination has to be calculated, checked for relevance and then either be discarded or saved.
The relevant bit of the code looks like this:
def modconffactory():
for transmitter in totaltransmitterdict.values():
for reciever in totalrecieverdict.values():
for processor in totalprocessordict.values():
for holoarray in totalholoarraydict.values():
for databus in totaldatabusdict.values():
for multiplexer in totalmultiplexerdict.values():
newconfiguration = [transmitter, reciever, processor, holoarray, databus, multiplexer]
data_I_need = dosomethingwith(newconfiguration)
saveforlateruse_if_useful(data_I_need)
Now this takes a long time and that is fine, but now I realize this process (making the configurations and then calculations for later use) is only using 1 of my 8 processor cores at a time.
I've been reading up about multithreading and multiprocessing, but I only see examples of different processes, not how to multithread one process. In my code I call two functions: 'dosomethingwith()' and 'saveforlateruse_if_useful()'. I could make those into separate processes and have those run concurrently to the for-loops, right?
But what about the for-loops themselves? Can I speed up that one process? Because that is where the time consumption is. (<-- This is my main question)
Is there a cheat? for instance compiling to C and then the os multithreads automatically?
I only see examples of different processes, not how to multithread one process
There is multithreading in Python, but it is very ineffective because of GIL (Global Interpreter Lock). So if you want to use all of your processor cores, if you want concurrency, you have no other choice than use multiple processes, which can be done with multiprocessing module (well, you also could use another language without such problems)
Approximate example of multiprocessing usage for your case:
import multiprocessing
WORKERS_NUMBER = 8
def modconffactoryProcess(generator, step, offset, conn):
"""
Function to be invoked by every worker process.
generator: iterable object, the very top one of all you are iterating over,
in your case, totalrecieverdict.values()
We are passing a whole iterable object to every worker, they all will iterate
over it. To ensure they will not waste time by doing the same things
concurrently, we will assume this: each worker will process only each stepTH
item, starting with offsetTH one. step must be equal to the WORKERS_NUMBER,
and offset must be a unique number for each worker, varying from 0 to
WORKERS_NUMBER - 1
conn: a multiprocessing.Connection object, allowing the worker to communicate
with the main process
"""
for i, transmitter in enumerate(generator):
if i % step == offset:
for reciever in totalrecieverdict.values():
for processor in totalprocessordict.values():
for holoarray in totalholoarraydict.values():
for databus in totaldatabusdict.values():
for multiplexer in totalmultiplexerdict.values():
newconfiguration = [transmitter, reciever, processor, holoarray, databus, multiplexer]
data_I_need = dosomethingwith(newconfiguration)
saveforlateruse_if_useful(data_I_need)
conn.send('done')
def modconffactory():
"""
Function to launch all the worker processes and wait until they all complete
their tasks
"""
processes = []
generator = totaltransmitterdict.values()
for i in range(WORKERS_NUMBER):
conn, childConn = multiprocessing.Pipe()
process = multiprocessing.Process(target=modconffactoryProcess, args=(generator, WORKERS_NUMBER, i, childConn))
process.start()
processes.append((process, conn))
# Here we have created, started and saved to a list all the worker processes
working = True
finishedProcessesNumber = 0
try:
while working:
for process, conn in processes:
if conn.poll(): # Check if any messages have arrived from a worker
message = conn.recv()
if message == 'done':
finishedProcessesNumber += 1
if finishedProcessesNumber == WORKERS_NUMBER:
working = False
except KeyboardInterrupt:
print('Aborted')
You can adjust WORKERS_NUMBER to your needs.
Same with multiprocessing.Pool:
import multiprocessing
WORKERS_NUMBER = 8
def modconffactoryProcess(transmitter):
for reciever in totalrecieverdict.values():
for processor in totalprocessordict.values():
for holoarray in totalholoarraydict.values():
for databus in totaldatabusdict.values():
for multiplexer in totalmultiplexerdict.values():
newconfiguration = [transmitter, reciever, processor, holoarray, databus, multiplexer]
data_I_need = dosomethingwith(newconfiguration)
saveforlateruse_if_useful(data_I_need)
def modconffactory():
pool = multiprocessing.Pool(WORKERS_NUMBER)
pool.map(modconffactoryProcess, totaltransmitterdict.values())
You probably would like to use .map_async instead of .map
Both snippets do the same, but I would say in the first one you have more control over the program.
I suppose the second one is the easiest, though :)
But the first one should give you the idea of what is happening in the second one
multiprocessing docs: https://docs.python.org/3/library/multiprocessing.html
you can run your function in this way:
from multiprocessing import Pool
def f(x):
return x*x
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = Pool(5)
print(p.map(f, [1, 2, 3]))
https://docs.python.org/2/library/multiprocessing.html#using-a-pool-of-workers
I am trying to use multiprocessing in python 3.6. I have a for loopthat runs a method with different arguments. Currently, it is running one at a time which is taking quite a bit of time so I am trying to use multiprocessing. Here is what I have:
def test(self):
for key, value in dict.items():
pool = Pool(processes=(cpu_count() - 1))
pool.apply_async(self.thread_process, args=(key,value))
pool.close()
pool.join()
def thread_process(self, key, value):
# self.__init__()
print("For", key)
I think what my code is using 3 processes to run one method but I would like to run 1 method per process but I don't know how this is done. I am using 4 cores btw.
You're making a pool at every iteration of the for loop. Make a pool beforehand, apply the processes you'd like to run in multiprocessing, and then join them:
from multiprocessing import Pool, cpu_count
import time
def t():
# Make a dummy dictionary
d = {k: k**2 for k in range(10)}
pool = Pool(processes=(cpu_count() - 1))
for key, value in d.items():
pool.apply_async(thread_process, args=(key, value))
pool.close()
pool.join()
def thread_process(key, value):
time.sleep(0.1) # Simulate a process taking some time to complete
print("For", key, value)
if __name__ == '__main__':
t()
You're not populating your multiprocessing.Pool with data - you're re-initializing the pool on each loop. In your case you can use Pool.map() to do all the heavy work for you:
def thread_process(args):
print(args)
def test():
pool = Pool(processes=(cpu_count() - 1))
pool.map(thread_process, your_dict.items())
pool.close()
if __name__ == "__main__": # important guard for cross-platform use
test()
Also, given all those self arguments I reckon you're snatching this off of a class instance and if so - don't, unless you know what you're doing. Since multiprocessing in Python essentially works as, well, multi-processing (unlike multi-threading) you don't get to share your memory, which means your data is pickled when exchanging between processes, which means anything that cannot be pickled (like instance methods) doesn't get called. You can read more on that problem on this answer.
I think what my code is using 3 processes to run one method but I would like to run 1 method per process but I don't know how this is done. I am using 4 cores btw.
No, you are in fact using the correct syntax here to utilize 3 cores to run an arbitrary function independently on each. You cannot magically utilize 3 cores to work together on one task with out explicitly making that a part of the algorithm itself/ coding that your self often using threads (which do not work the same in python as they do outside of the language).
You are however re-initializing the pool every loop you'll need to do something like this instead to actually perform this properly:
cpus_to_run_on = cpu_count() - 1
pool = Pool(processes=(cpus_to_run_on)
# don't call a dictionary a dict, you will not be able to use dict() any
# more after that point, that's like calling a variable len or abs, you
# can't use those functions now
pool.map(your_function, your_function_args)
pool.close()
Take a look at the python multiprocessing docs for more specific information if you'd like to get a better understanding of how it works. Under python, you cannot utilize threading to do multiprocessing with the default CPython interpreter. This is because of something called the global interpreter lock, which stops concurrent resource access from within python itself. The GIL doesn't exist in other implementations of the language, and is not something other languages like C and C++ have to deal with (and thus you can actually use threads in parallel to work together on a task, unlike CPython)
Python gets around this issue by simply making multiple interpreter instances when using the multiprocessing module, and any message passing between instances is done via copying data between processes (ie the same memory is typically not touched by both interpreter instances). This does not however happen in the misleadingly named threading module, which often actually slow processes down because of a process called context switching. Threading today has limited usefullness, but provides an easier way around non GIL locked processes like socket and file reads/writes than async python.
Beyond all this though there is a bigger problem with your multiprocessing. Your writing to standard output. You aren't going to get the gains you want. Think about it. Each of your processes "print" data, but its all being displayed in one terminal/output screen. So even if your processes are "printing" they aren't really doing that independently, and the information has to be coalesced back into another processes where the text interface lies (ie your console). So these processes write whatever they were going to to some sort of buffer, which then has to be copied (as we learned from how multiprocessing works) to another process which will then take that buffered data and output it.
Typically dummy programs use printing as a means of showing how there is no order between execution of these processes, that they can finish at different times, they aren't meant to demonstrate the performance benefits of multi core processing.
I have experimented a bit this week with multiprocessing. The fastest way that I discovered to do multiprocessing in python3 is using imap_unordered, at least in my scenario. Here is a script you can experiment with using your scenario to figure out what works best for you:
import multiprocessing
NUMBER_OF_PROCESSES = multiprocessing.cpu_count()
MP_FUNCTION = 'imap_unordered' # 'imap_unordered' or 'starmap' or 'apply_async'
def process_chunk(a_chunk):
print(f"processig mp chunk {a_chunk}")
return a_chunk
map_jobs = [1, 2, 3, 4]
result_sum = 0
if MP_FUNCTION == 'imap_unordered':
pool = multiprocessing.Pool(processes=NUMBER_OF_PROCESSES)
for i in pool.imap_unordered(process_chunk, map_jobs):
result_sum += i
elif MP_FUNCTION == 'starmap':
pool = multiprocessing.Pool(processes=NUMBER_OF_PROCESSES)
try:
map_jobs = [(i, ) for i in map_jobs]
result_sum = pool.starmap(process_chunk, map_jobs)
result_sum = sum(result_sum)
finally:
pool.close()
pool.join()
elif MP_FUNCTION == 'apply_async':
with multiprocessing.Pool(processes=NUMBER_OF_PROCESSES) as pool:
result_sum = [pool.apply_async(process_chunk, [i, ]).get() for i in map_jobs]
result_sum = sum(result_sum)
print(f"result_sum is {result_sum}")
I found that starmap was not too far behind in performance, in my scenario it used more cpu and ended up being a bit slower. Hope this boilerplate helps.
Suppose I have the following in Python
# A loop
for i in range(10000):
Do Task A
# B loop
for i in range(10000):
Do Task B
How do I run these loops simultaneously in Python?
If you want concurrency, here's a very simple example:
from multiprocessing import Process
def loop_a():
while 1:
print("a")
def loop_b():
while 1:
print("b")
if __name__ == '__main__':
Process(target=loop_a).start()
Process(target=loop_b).start()
This is just the most basic example I could think of. Be sure to read http://docs.python.org/library/multiprocessing.html to understand what's happening.
If you want to send data back to the program, I'd recommend using a Queue (which in my experience is easiest to use).
You can use a thread instead if you don't mind the global interpreter lock. Processes are more expensive to instantiate but they offer true concurrency.
There are many possible options for what you wanted:
use loop
As many people have pointed out, this is the simplest way.
for i in xrange(10000):
# use xrange instead of range
taskA()
taskB()
Merits: easy to understand and use, no extra library needed.
Drawbacks: taskB must be done after taskA, or otherwise. They can't be running simultaneously.
multiprocess
Another thought would be: run two processes at the same time, python provides multiprocess library, the following is a simple example:
from multiprocessing import Process
p1 = Process(target=taskA, args=(*args, **kwargs))
p2 = Process(target=taskB, args=(*args, **kwargs))
p1.start()
p2.start()
merits: task can be run simultaneously in the background, you can control tasks(end, stop them etc), tasks can exchange data, can be synchronized if they compete the same resources etc.
drawbacks: too heavy!OS will frequently switch between them, they have their own data space even if data is redundant. If you have a lot tasks (say 100 or more), it's not what you want.
threading
threading is like process, just lightweight. check out this post. Their usage is quite similar:
import threading
p1 = threading.Thread(target=taskA, args=(*args, **kwargs))
p2 = threading.Thread(target=taskB, args=(*args, **kwargs))
p1.start()
p2.start()
coroutines
libraries like greenlet and gevent provides something called coroutines, which is supposed to be faster than threading. No examples provided, please google how to use them if you're interested.
merits: more flexible and lightweight
drawbacks: extra library needed, learning curve.
Why do you want to run the two processes at the same time? Is it because you think they will go faster (there is a good chance that they wont). Why not run the tasks in the same loop, e.g.
for i in range(10000):
doTaskA()
doTaskB()
The obvious answer to your question is to use threads - see the python threading module. However threading is a big subject and has many pitfalls, so read up on it before you go down that route.
Alternatively you could run the tasks in separate proccesses, using the python multiprocessing module. If both tasks are CPU intensive this will make better use of multiple cores on your computer.
There are other options such as coroutines, stackless tasklets, greenlets, CSP etc, but Without knowing more about Task A and Task B and why they need to be run at the same time it is impossible to give a more specific answer.
from threading import Thread
def loopA():
for i in range(10000):
#Do task A
def loopB():
for i in range(10000):
#Do task B
threadA = Thread(target = loopA)
threadB = Thread(target = loobB)
threadA.run()
threadB.run()
# Do work indepedent of loopA and loopB
threadA.join()
threadB.join()
You could use threading or multiprocessing.
How about: A loop for i in range(10000): Do Task A, Do Task B ? Without more information i dont have a better answer.
I find that using the "pool" submodule within "multiprocessing" works amazingly for executing multiple processes at once within a Python Script.
See Section: Using a pool of workers
Look carefully at "# launching multiple evaluations asynchronously may use more processes" in the example. Once you understand what those lines are doing, the following example I constructed will make a lot of sense.
import numpy as np
from multiprocessing import Pool
def desired_function(option, processes, data, etc...):
# your code will go here. option allows you to make choices within your script
# to execute desired sections of code for each pool or subprocess.
return result_array # "for example"
result_array = np.zeros("some shape") # This is normally populated by 1 loop, lets try 4.
processes = 4
pool = Pool(processes=processes)
args = (processes, data, etc...) # Arguments to be passed into desired function.
multiple_results = []
for i in range(processes): # Executes each pool w/ option (1-4 in this case).
multiple_results.append(pool.apply_async(param_process, (i+1,)+args)) # Syncs each.
results = np.array(res.get() for res in multiple_results) # Retrieves results after
# every pool is finished!
for i in range(processes):
result_array = result_array + results[i] # Combines all datasets!
The code will basically run the desired function for a set number of processes. You will have to carefully make sure your function can distinguish between each process (hence why I added the variable "option".) Additionally, it doesn't have to be an array that is being populated in the end, but for my example, that's how I used it. Hope this simplifies or helps you better understand the power of multiprocessing in Python!