We Keep Coding

Does multiprocessing copy the object in this scenario?

import multiprocessing
import numpy as np
import multiprocessing as mp
import ctypes
class Test():
def __init__(self):
shared_array_base = multiprocessing.Array(ctypes.c_double, 100, lock=False)
self.a = shared_array = np.ctypeslib.as_array(shared_array_base)
def my_fun(self,i):
self.a[i] = 1
if __name__ == "__main__":
num_cores = multiprocessing.cpu_count()
t = Test()
def my_fun_wrapper(i):
t.my_fun(i)
with mp.Pool(num_cores) as p:
p.map(my_fun_wrapper, np.arange(100))
print(t.a)
In the code above, I'm trying to write a code to modify an array, using multiprocessing. The function my_fun(), executed in each process, should modify the value for the array a[:] at index i which is passed to my_fun() as a parameter. With regards to the code above, I would like to know what is being copied.
1) Is anything in the code being copied by each process? I think the object might be but ideally nothing is.
2) Is there a way to get around using a wrapper function my_fun() for the object?

Almost everything in your code is getting copied, except the shared memory you allocated with multiprocessing.Array. multiprocessing is full of unintuitive, implicit copies.
When you spawn a new process in multiprocessing, the new process needs its own version of just about everything in the original process. This is handled differently depending on platform and settings, but we can tell you're using "fork" mode, because your code wouldn't work in "spawn" or "forkserver" mode - you'd get an error about the workers not being able to find my_fun_wrapper. (Windows only supports "spawn", so we can tell you're not on Windows.)
In "fork" mode, this initial copy is made by using the fork system call to ask the OS to essentially copy the whole entire process and everything inside. The memory allocated by multiprocessing.Array is sort of "external" and isn't copied, but most other things are. (There's also copy-on-write optimization, but copy-on-write still behaves as if everything was copied, and the optimization doesn't work very well in Python due to refcount updates.)
When you dispatch tasks to worker processes, multiprocessing needs to make even more copies. Any arguments, and the callable for the task itself, are objects in the master process, and objects inherently exist in only one process. The workers can't access any of that. They need their own versions. multiprocessing handles this second round of copies by pickling the callable and arguments, sending the serialized bytes over interprocess communication, and unpickling the pickles in the worker.
When the master pickles my_fun_wrapper, the pickle just says "look for the my_fun_wrapper function in the __main__ module", and the workers look up their version of my_fun_wrapper to unpickle it. my_fun_wrapper looks for a global t, and in the workers, that t was produced by the fork, and the fork produced a t with an array backed by the shared memory you allocated with your original multiprocessing.Array call.
On the other hand, if you try to pass t.my_fun to p.map, then multiprocessing has to pickle and unpickle a method object. The resulting pickle doesn't say "look up the t global variable and get its my_fun method". The pickle says to build a new Test instance and get its my_fun method. The pickle doesn't have any instructions in it about using the shared memory you allocated, and the resulting Test instance and its array are independent of the original array you wanted to modify.
I know of no good way to avoid needing some sort of wrapper function.

Multiprocessing storing read-only string-array for all processes

I am trying to create workers for a task that involves reading a lot of files and analyzing them.
I want something like this:
list_of_unique_keys_from_csv_file = [] # About 200mb array (10m rows)
# a list of uniquekeys for comparing inside worker processes to a set of flatfiles
I need more threads as it is going very slow, doing the comparison with one process (10 minutes per file).
I have another set of flat-files that I compare the CSV file to, to see if unique keys exist. This seems like a map reduce type of problem.
main.py:
def worker_process(directory_glob_of_flat_files, list_of_unique_keys_from_csv_file):
# Do some parallel comparisons "if not in " type stuff.
# generate an array of
# lines of text like : "this item_x was not detected in CSV list (from current_flatfile)"
if current_item not in list_of_unique_keys_from_csv_file:
all_lines_this_worker_generated.append(sometext + current_item)
return all_lines_this_worker_generated
def main():
all_results = []
pool = Pool(processes=6)
partitioned_flat_files = [] # divide files from glob by 6
results = pool.starmap(worker_process, partitioned_flat_files, {{{{i wanna pass in my read-only parameter}}}})
pool.close()
pool.join()
all_results.extend(results )
resulting_file.write(all_results)
I am using both a linux and a windows environment, so perhaps I need something cross-platform compatible (the whole fork() discussion).
Main Question: Do I need some sort of Pipe or Queue, I can't seem to find good examples of how to transfer around a big read-only string array, a copy for each worker process?

You can just split your read-only parameters and then pass them in. The multiprocessing module is cross-platform compatible, so don't worry about it.
Actually, every process, even sub-process, has its own resources, that means no matter how you pass the parameters to it, it will keep a copy of the original one instead of sharing it. In this simple case, when you pass the parameters from main process into sub-processes, Pool automatically makes a copy of your variables. Because sub-processes just have the copies of original one, so the modification cannot be shared. It doesn't matter in this case as your variables are read-only.
But be careful about your code, you need to wrap the parameters you need into an
iterable collection, for example:
def add(a, b):
return a + b
pool = Pool()
results = pool.starmap(add, [(1, 2), (3, 4)])
print(results)
# [3, 7]

How do i use subprocesses to force python to release memory?

I was reading up on Python Memory Management and would like to reduce the memory footprint of my application. It was suggested that subprocesses would go a long way in mitigating the problem; but i'm having trouble conceptualizing what needs to be done. Could some one please provide a simple example of how to turn this...
def my_function():
x = range(1000000)
y = copy.deepcopy(x)
del x
return y
#subprocess_witchcraft
def my_function_dispatcher(*args):
return my_function()
...into a real subprocessed function that doesn't store an extra "free-list"?
Bonus Question:
Does this "free-list" concept apply to python c-extensions as well?

The important thing about the optimization suggestion is to make sure that my_function() is only invoked in a subprocess. The deepcopy and del are irrelevant — once you create five million distinct integers in a process, holding onto all of them at the same time, it's game over. Even if you stop referring to those objects, Python will free them by keeping references to five million empty integer-object-sized fields in a limbo where they await reuse for the next function that wants to create five million integers. This is the free list mentioned in the other answer, and it buys blindingly fast allocation and deallocation of ints and floats. It is only fair to Python to note that this is not a memory leak since the memory is definitely made available for further allocations. However, that memory will not get returned to the system until the process ends, nor will it be reused for anything other than allocating numbers of the same type.
Most programs don't have this problem because most programs do not create pathologically huge lists of numbers, free them, and then expect to reuse that memory for other objects. Programs using numpy are also safe because numpy stores numeric data of its arrays in tightly packed native format. For programs that do follow this usage pattern, the way to mitigate the problem is by not creating a large number of the integers at the same time in the first place, at least not in the process which needs to return memory to the system. It is unclear what exact use case you have, but a real-world solution will likely require more than a "magic decorator".
This is where subprocess come in: if the list of numbers is created in another process, then all the memory associated with the list, including but not limited to storage of ints, is both freed and returned to the system by the mere act of terminating the subprocess. Of course, you must design your program so that the list can be both created and processed in the subsystem, without requiring the transfer of all these numbers. The subprocess can receive information needed to create the data set, and can send back the information obtained from processing the list.
To illustrate the principle, let's upgrade your example so that the whole list actually needs to exist - say we're benchmarking sorting algorithms. We want to create a huge list of integers, sort it, and reliably free the memory associated with the list, so that the next benchmark can allocate memory for its own needs without worrying of running out of RAM. To spawn the subprocess and communicate, this uses the multiprocessing module:
# To run this, save it to a file that looks like a valid Python module, e.g.
# "foo.py" - multiprocessing requires being able to import the main module.
# Then run it with "python foo.py".
import multiprocessing, random, sys, os, time
def create_list(size):
# utility function for clarity - runs in subprocess
maxint = sys.maxint
randrange = random.randrange
return [randrange(maxint) for i in xrange(size)]
def run_test(state):
# this function is run in a separate process
size = state['list_size']
print 'creating a list with %d random elements - this can take a while... ' % size,
sys.stdout.flush()
lst = create_list(size)
print 'done'
t0 = time.time()
lst.sort()
t1 = time.time()
state['time'] = t1 - t0
if __name__ == '__main__':
manager = multiprocessing.Manager()
state = manager.dict(list_size=5*1000*1000) # shared state
p = multiprocessing.Process(target=run_test, args=(state,))
p.start()
p.join()
print 'time to sort: %.3f' % state['time']
print 'my PID is %d, sleeping for a minute...' % os.getpid()
time.sleep(60)
# at this point you can inspect the running process to see that it
# does not consume excess memory
Bonus Answer
It is hard to provide an answer to the bonus question, since the question is unclear. The "free list concept" is exactly that, a concept, an implementation strategy that needs to be explicitly coded on top of the regular Python allocator. Most Python types do not use that allocation strategy, for example it is not used for instances of classes created with the class statement. Implementing a free list is not hard, but it is fairly advanced and rarely undertaken without good reason. If some extension author has chosen to use a free list for one of its types, it can be expected that they are aware of the tradeoff a free list offers — gaining extra-fast allocation/deallocation at the cost of some additional space (for the objects on the free list and the free list itself) and inability to reuse the memory for something else.

Python multiprocess with pool workers - memory use optimization

I have a fuzzy string matching script that looks for some 30K needles in a haystack of 4 million company names. While the script works fine, my attempts at speeding up things via parallel processing on an AWS h1.xlarge failed as I'm running out of memory.
Rather than trying to get more memory as explained in response to my previous question, I'd like to find out how to optimize the workflow - I'm fairly new to this so there should be plenty of room. Btw, I've already experimented with queues (also worked but ran into the same MemoryError, plus looked through a bunch of very helpful SO contributions, but not quite there yet.
Here's what seems most relevant of the code. I hope it sufficiently clarifies the logic - happy to provide more info as needed:
def getHayStack():
## loads a few million company names into id: name dict
return hayCompanies
def getNeedles(*args):
## loads subset of 30K companies into id: name dict (for allocation to workers)
return needleCompanies
def findNeedle(needle, haystack):
""" Identify best match and return results with score """
results = {}
for hayID, hayCompany in haystack.iteritems():
if not isnull(haystack[hayID]):
results[hayID] = levi.setratio(needle.split(' '),
hayCompany.split(' '))
scores = list(results.values())
resultIDs = list(results.keys())
needleID = resultIDs[scores.index(max(scores))]
return [needleID, haystack[needleID], max(scores)]
def runMatch(args):
""" Execute findNeedle and process results for poolWorker batch"""
batch, first = args
last = first + batch
hayCompanies = getHayStack()
needleCompanies = getTargets(first, last)
needles = defaultdict(list)
current = first
for needleID, needleCompany in needleCompanies.iteritems():
current += 1
needles[targetID] = findNeedle(needleCompany, hayCompanies)
## Then store results
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = Pool(processes = numProcesses)
totalTargets = len(getTargets('all'))
targetsPerBatch = totalTargets / numProcesses
pool.map_async(runMatch,
itertools.izip(itertools.repeat(targetsPerBatch),
xrange(0,
totalTargets,
targetsPerBatch))).get(99999999)
pool.close()
pool.join()
So I guess the questions are: How can I avoid loading the haystack for all workers - e.g. by sharing the data or taking a different approach like dividing the much larger haystack across workers rather than the needles? How can I otherwise improve memory usage by avoiding or eliminating clutter?

Your design is a bit confusing. You're using a pool of N workers, and then breaking your M jobs work up into N tasks of size M/N. In other words, if you get that all correct, you're simulating worker processes on top of a pool built on top of worker processes. Why bother with that? If you want to use processes, just use them directly. Alternatively, use a pool as a pool, sends each job as its own task, and use the batching feature to batch them up in some appropriate (and tweakable) way.
That means that runMatch just takes a single needleID and needleCompany, and all it does is call findNeedle and then do whatever that # Then store results part is. And then the main program gets a lot simpler:
if __name__ == '__main__':
with Pool(processes=numProcesses) as pool:
results = pool.map_async(runMatch, needleCompanies.iteritems(),
chunkSize=NUMBER_TWEAKED_IN_TESTING).get()
Or, if the results are small, instead of having all of the processes (presumably) fighting over some shared resulting-storing thing, just return them. Then you don't need runMatch at all, just:
if __name__ == '__main__':
with Pool(processes=numProcesses) as pool:
for result in pool.imap_unordered(findNeedle, needleCompanies.iteritems(),
chunkSize=NUMBER_TWEAKED_IN_TESTING):
# Store result
Or, alternatively, if you do want to do exactly N batches, just create a Process for each one:
if __name__ == '__main__':
totalTargets = len(getTargets('all'))
targetsPerBatch = totalTargets / numProcesses
processes = [Process(target=runMatch,
args=(targetsPerBatch,
xrange(0,
totalTargets,
targetsPerBatch)))
for _ in range(numProcesses)]
for p in processes:
p.start()
for p in processes:
p.join()
Also, you seem to be calling getHayStack() once for each task (and getNeedles as well). I'm not sure how easy it would be to end up with multiple copies of this live at the same time, but considering that it's the largest data structure you have by far, that would be the first thing I try to rule out. In fact, even if it's not a memory-usage problem, getHayStack could easily be a big performance hit, unless you're already doing some kind of caching (e.g., explicitly storing it in a global or a mutable default parameter value the first time, and then just using it), so it may be worth fixing anyway.
One way to fix both potential problems at once is to use an initializer in the Pool constructor:
def initPool():
global _haystack
_haystack = getHayStack()
def runMatch(args):
global _haystack
# ...
hayCompanies = _haystack
# ...
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = Pool(processes=numProcesses, initializer=initPool)
# ...
Next, I notice that you're explicitly generating lists in multiple places where you don't actually need them. For example:
scores = list(results.values())
resultIDs = list(results.keys())
needleID = resultIDs[scores.index(max(scores))]
return [needleID, haystack[needleID], max(scores)]
If there's more than a handful of results, this is wasteful; just use the results.values() iterable directly. (In fact, it looks like you're using Python 2.x, in which case keys and values are already lists, so you're just making an extra copy for no good reason.)
But in this case, you can simplify the whole thing even farther. You're just looking for the key (resultID) and value (score) with the highest score, right? So:
needleID, score = max(results.items(), key=operator.itemgetter(1))
return [needleID, haystack[needleID], score]
This also eliminates all the repeated searches over score, which should save some CPU.
This may not directly solve the memory problem, but it should hopefully make it easier to debug and/or tweak.
The first thing to try is just to use much smaller batches—instead of input_size/cpu_count, try 1. Does memory usage go down? If not, we've ruled that part out.
Next, try sys.getsizeof(_haystack) and see what it says. If it's, say, 1.6GB, then you're cutting things pretty fine trying to squeeze everything else into 0.4GB, so that's the way to attack it—e.g., use a shelve database instead of a plain dict.
Also try dumping memory usage (with the resource module, getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF)) at the start and end of the initializer function. If the final haystack is only, say, 0.3GB, but you allocate another 1.3GB building it up, that's the problem to attack. For example, you might spin off a single child process to build and pickle the dict, then have the pool initializer just open it and unpickle it. Or combine the two—build a shelve db in the first child, and open it read-only in the initializer. Either way, this would also mean you're only doing the CSV-parsing/dict-building work once instead of 8 times.
On the other hand, if your total VM usage is still low (note that getrusage doesn't directly have any way to see your total VM size—ru_maxrss is often a useful approximation, especially if ru_nswap is 0) at time the first task runs, the problem is with the tasks themselves.
First, getsizeof the arguments to the task function and the value you return. If they're large, especially if they either keep getting larger with each task or are wildly variable, it could just be pickling and unpickling that data takes too much memory, and eventually 8 of them are together big enough to hit the limit.
Otherwise, the problem is most likely in the task function itself. Either you've got a memory leak (you can only have a real leak by using a buggy C extension module or ctypes, but if you keep any references around between calls, e.g., in a global, you could just be holding onto things forever unnecessarily), or some of the tasks themselves take too much memory. Either way, this should be something you can test more easily by pulling out the multiprocessing and just running the tasks directly, which is a lot easier to debug.

multiprocessing: sharing a large read-only object between processes?

Do child processes spawned via multiprocessing share objects created earlier in the program?
I have the following setup:
do_some_processing(filename):
for line in file(filename):
if line.split(',')[0] in big_lookup_object:
# something here
if __name__ == '__main__':
big_lookup_object = marshal.load('file.bin')
pool = Pool(processes=4)
print pool.map(do_some_processing, glob.glob('*.data'))
I'm loading some big object into memory, then creating a pool of workers that need to make use of that big object. The big object is accessed read-only, I don't need to pass modifications of it between processes.
My question is: is the big object loaded into shared memory, as it would be if I spawned a process in unix/c, or does each process load its own copy of the big object?
Update: to clarify further - big_lookup_object is a shared lookup object. I don't need to split that up and process it separately. I need to keep a single copy of it. The work that I need to split it is reading lots of other large files and looking up the items in those large files against the lookup object.
Further update: database is a fine solution, memcached might be a better solution, and file on disk (shelve or dbm) might be even better. In this question I was particularly interested in an in memory solution. For the final solution I'll be using hadoop, but I wanted to see if I can have a local in-memory version as well.

Do child processes spawned via multiprocessing share objects created earlier in the program?
No for Python < 3.8, yes for Python ≥ 3.8.
Processes have independent memory space.
Solution 1
To make best use of a large structure with lots of workers, do this.
Write each worker as a "filter" – reads intermediate results from stdin, does work, writes intermediate results on stdout.
Connect all the workers as a pipeline:
process1 <source | process2 | process3 | ... | processn >result
Each process reads, does work and writes.
This is remarkably efficient since all processes are running concurrently. The writes and reads pass directly through shared buffers between the processes.
Solution 2
In some cases, you have a more complex structure – often a fan-out structure. In this case you have a parent with multiple children.
Parent opens source data. Parent forks a number of children.
Parent reads source, farms parts of the source out to each concurrently running child.
When parent reaches the end, close the pipe. Child gets end of file and finishes normally.
The child parts are pleasant to write because each child simply reads sys.stdin.
The parent has a little bit of fancy footwork in spawning all the children and retaining the pipes properly, but it's not too bad.
Fan-in is the opposite structure. A number of independently running processes need to interleave their inputs into a common process. The collector is not as easy to write, since it has to read from many sources.
Reading from many named pipes is often done using the select module to see which pipes have pending input.
Solution 3
Shared lookup is the definition of a database.
Solution 3A – load a database. Let the workers process the data in the database.
Solution 3B – create a very simple server using werkzeug (or similar) to provide WSGI applications that respond to HTTP GET so the workers can query the server.
Solution 4
Shared filesystem object. Unix OS offers shared memory objects. These are just files that are mapped to memory so that swapping I/O is done instead of more convention buffered reads.
You can do this from a Python context in several ways
Write a startup program that (1) breaks your original gigantic object into smaller objects, and (2) starts workers, each with a smaller object. The smaller objects could be pickled Python objects to save a tiny bit of file reading time.
Write a startup program that (1) reads your original gigantic object and writes a page-structured, byte-coded file using seek operations to assure that individual sections are easy to find with simple seeks. This is what a database engine does – break the data into pages, make each page easy to locate via a seek.
Spawn workers with access to this large page-structured file. Each worker can seek to the relevant parts and do their work there.

Do child processes spawned via multiprocessing share objects created earlier in the program?
It depends. For global read-only variables it can be often considered so (apart from the memory consumed) else it should not.
multiprocessing's documentation says:
Better to inherit than pickle/unpickle
On Windows many types from
multiprocessing need to be picklable
so that child processes can use them.
However, one should generally avoid
sending shared objects to other
processes using pipes or queues.
Instead you should arrange the program
so that a process which need access to
a shared resource created elsewhere
can inherit it from an ancestor
process.
Explicitly pass resources to child processes
On Unix a child process can make use
of a shared resource created in a
parent process using a global
resource. However, it is better to
pass the object as an argument to the
constructor for the child process.
Apart from making the code
(potentially) compatible with Windows
this also ensures that as long as the
child process is still alive the
object will not be garbage collected
in the parent process. This might be
important if some resource is freed
when the object is garbage collected
in the parent process.
Global variables
Bear in mind that if code run in a
child process tries to access a global
variable, then the value it sees (if
any) may not be the same as the value
in the parent process at the time that
Process.start() was called.
Example
On Windows (single CPU):
#!/usr/bin/env python
import os, sys, time
from multiprocessing import Pool
x = 23000 # replace `23` due to small integers share representation
z = [] # integers are immutable, let's try mutable object
def printx(y):
global x
if y == 3:
x = -x
z.append(y)
print os.getpid(), x, id(x), z, id(z)
print y
if len(sys.argv) == 2 and sys.argv[1] == "sleep":
time.sleep(.1) # should make more apparant the effect
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = Pool(processes=4)
pool.map(printx, (1,2,3,4))
With sleep:
$ python26 test_share.py sleep
2504 23000 11639492 [1] 10774408
1
2564 23000 11639492 [2] 10774408
2
2504 -23000 11639384 [1, 3] 10774408
3
4084 23000 11639492 [4] 10774408
4
Without sleep:
$ python26 test_share.py
1148 23000 11639492 [1] 10774408
1
1148 23000 11639492 [1, 2] 10774408
2
1148 -23000 11639324 [1, 2, 3] 10774408
3
1148 -23000 11639324 [1, 2, 3, 4] 10774408
4

S.Lott is correct. Python's multiprocessing shortcuts effectively give you a separate, duplicated chunk of memory.
On most *nix systems, using a lower-level call to os.fork() will, in fact, give you copy-on-write memory, which might be what you're thinking. AFAIK, in theory, in the most simplistic of programs possible, you could read from that data without having it duplicated.
However, things aren't quite that simple in the Python interpreter. Object data and meta-data are stored in the same memory segment, so even if the object never changes, something like a reference counter for that object being incremented will cause a memory write, and therefore a copy. Almost any Python program that is doing more than "print 'hello'" will cause reference count increments, so you will likely never realize the benefit of copy-on-write.
Even if someone did manage to hack a shared-memory solution in Python, trying to coordinate garbage collection across processes would probably be pretty painful.

If you're running under Unix, they may share the same object, due to how fork works (i.e., the child processes have separate memory but it's copy-on-write, so it may be shared as long as nobody modifies it). I tried the following:
import multiprocessing
x = 23
def printx(y):
print x, id(x)
print y
if __name__ == '__main__':
pool = multiprocessing.Pool(processes=4)
pool.map(printx, (1,2,3,4))
and got the following output:
$ ./mtest.py
23 22995656
1
23 22995656
2
23 22995656
3
23 22995656
4
Of course this doesn't prove that a copy hasn't been made, but you should be able to verify that in your situation by looking at the output of ps to see how much real memory each subprocess is using.

Different processes have different address space. Like running different instances of the interpreter. That's what IPC (interprocess communication) is for.
You can use either queues or pipes for this purpose. You can also use rpc over tcp if you want to distribute the processes over a network later.
http://docs.python.org/dev/library/multiprocessing.html#exchanging-objects-between-processes

Not directly related to multiprocessing per se, but from your example, it would seem you could just use the shelve module or something like that. Does the "big_lookup_object" really have to be completely in memory?

No, but you can load your data as a child process and allow it to share its data with other children. see below.
import time
import multiprocessing
def load_data( queue_load, n_processes )
... load data here into some_variable
"""
Store multiple copies of the data into
the data queue. There needs to be enough
copies available for each process to access.
"""
for i in range(n_processes):
queue_load.put(some_variable)
def work_with_data( queue_data, queue_load ):
# Wait for load_data() to complete
while queue_load.empty():
time.sleep(1)
some_variable = queue_load.get()
"""
! Tuples can also be used here
if you have multiple data files
you wish to keep seperate.
a,b = queue_load.get()
"""
... do some stuff, resulting in new_data
# store it in the queue
queue_data.put(new_data)
def start_multiprocess():
n_processes = 5
processes = []
stored_data = []
# Create two Queues
queue_load = multiprocessing.Queue()
queue_data = multiprocessing.Queue()
for i in range(n_processes):
if i == 0:
# Your big data file will be loaded here...
p = multiprocessing.Process(target = load_data,
args=(queue_load, n_processes))
processes.append(p)
p.start()
# ... and then it will be used here with each process
p = multiprocessing.Process(target = work_with_data,
args=(queue_data, queue_load))
processes.append(p)
p.start()
for i in range(n_processes)
new_data = queue_data.get()
stored_data.append(new_data)
for p in processes:
p.join()
print(processes)

For Linux/Unix/MacOS platform, forkmap is a quick-and-dirty solution.