We Keep Coding

Twisted, genvent, asyncoro - are they what I might need?

Learning Python and trying to do something ambitious (perhaps too much).
The application (console, that runs silently like a server), needs to talk to 2 serial ports, needs to deal with timers, needs to push information on Redis KV-store, write logs, and interact with bunch of other similar applications using unix IPC (or socket comm.)
The easier way (to my mind) to think of such an application is to work with threads and event queues. However due to what I understand as GIL enforced limitation with threading, it is not quite an option with Python (unless, I misunderstood things). The alternative way, what I understood - is to work with asynchronous I/O framework, green-threads, coroutines etc.
Are twisted, gevent and asyncoro really alternatives in Python for asynchronous event-driven programming that I intend to write ?
Since learning twisted seems to be such a big investment (in terms of time/effort), I was wondering if gevent and asyncoro could be easier and better alternative ? From the bit of superficial document reading done so far, asyncoro seems to be simplest, with very limited amount of new learning, and Twisted is other extreme, with gevent being somewhere in the middle -- but then I am not sure, if they are really comparable.
Here's an example of what the application would do if were multi-threaded:
Thread:1 - Monitor health of serial port, periodically i.e. with a timer. Say check every 2 minutes if last state was healthy. If last state was unhealthy then check every 30 seconds for first 5 mins, then every minute for next 10 mins... like in exponential backoff. Note that there are multiple such serial ports.
Thread:2 - Monitor state of application-level sessions that come-and-go from time to time, over the serial ports, and the communication that happens over it. Redis is (planned) to be used to write to distributed KV-store s.t. other instances of application (running on same or other servers), can coordinate certain other actions.
Thread:3 - Performs some other housekeeping tasks.
All of the threads need to do logging, all the threads use timers (& other events) to do certain things. Timers are used for periodic execution of some logic and as timeouts to guard certain actions (blocking or non-blocking).
My experience with Python is extremely limited, but I have experience writing similar programs in C/C++ and Java. Using Python for this, to learn.

You can use any of the libraries you've mentioned here to implement the application you've described. You can also use traditional threads. The GIL prevents you from achieving hardware-level parallelism in the execution of Python byte code operations (as distinct from, say, native code being invoked from your Python program). It does not prevent you from performing parallel I/O operations - which is what it sounds like your application is primarily concerned with.
There isn't enough detail in your question to provide a recommendation of one of these tools over another (and if there were enough detail, the question would probably be enormous and the effort to answer it correctly would probably discourage anyone on SO from doing so). It's typically safe to say that the threading approach is probably the worst, though (for a variety of reasons I won't even attempt to expain here; they're documented well enough on the internet at large).

Python - question regarding the concurrent use of `multiprocess`

I want to use Python's multiprocessing to do concurrent processing without using locks (locks to me are the opposite of multiprocessing) because I want to build up multiple reports from different resources at the exact same time during a web request (normally takes about 3 seconds but with multiprocessing I can do it in .5 seconds).
My problem is that, if I expose such a feature to the web and get 10 users pulling the same report at the same time, I suddenly have 60 interpreters open at the same time (which would crash the system). Is this just the common sense result of using multiprocessing, or is there a trick to get around this potential nightmare?
Thanks

If you're really worried about having too many instances you could think about protecting the call with a Semaphore object. If I understand what you're doing then you can use the threaded semaphore object:
from threading import Semaphore
sem = Semaphore(10)
with sem:
make_multiprocessing_call()
I'm assuming that make_multiprocessing_call() will cleanup after itself.
This way only 10 "extra" instances of python will ever be opened, if another request comes along it will just have to wait until the previous have completed. Unfortunately this won't be in "Queue" order ... or any order in particular.
Hope that helps

You are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to use multiprocess to add concurrency to a network app. You are barking up a completely wrong tree if you're creating processes for each request. multiprocess is not what you want (at least as a concurrency model).
There's a good chance you want an asynchronous networking framework like Twisted.

locks are only ever nessecary if you have multiple agents writing to a source. If they are just accessing, locks are not needed (and as you said defeat the purpose of multiprocessing).
Are you sure that would crash the system? On a web server using CGI, each request spawns a new process, so it's not unusual to see thousands of simultaneous processes (granted in python one should use wsgi and avoid this), which do not crash the system.
I suggest you test your theory -- it shouldn't be difficult to manufacture 10 simultaneous accesses -- and see if your server really does crash.

What would I use Stackless Python for?

There are many questions related to Stackless Python. But none answering this my question, I think (correct me if wrong - please!). There's some buzz about it all the time so I curious to know. What would I use Stackless for? How is it better than CPython?
Yes it has green threads (stackless) that allow quickly create many lightweight threads as long as no operations are blocking (something like Ruby's threads?). What is this great for? What other features it has I want to use over CPython?

It allows you to work with massive amounts of concurrency. Nobody sane would create one hundred thousand system threads, but you can do this using stackless.
This article tests doing just that, creating one hundred thousand tasklets in both Python and Google Go (a new programming language): http://dalkescientific.com/writings/diary/archive/2009/11/15/100000_tasklets.html
Surprisingly, even if Google Go is compiled to native code, and they tout their co-routines implementation, Python still wins.
Stackless would be good for implementing a map/reduce algorithm, where you can have a very large number of reducers depending on your input data.

Stackless Python's main benefit is the support for very lightweight coroutines. CPython doesn't support coroutines natively (although I expect someone to post a generator-based hack in the comments) so Stackless is a clear improvement on CPython when you have a problem that benefits from coroutines.
I think the main area where they excel are when you have many concurrent tasks running within your program. Examples might be game entities that run a looping script for their AI, or a web server that is servicing many clients with pages that are slow to create.
You still have many of the typical problems with concurrency correctness however regarding shared data, but the deterministic task switching makes it easier to write safe code since you know exactly where control will be transferred and therefore know the exact points at which the shared state must be up to date.

Thirler already mentioned that stackless was used in Eve Online. Keep in mind, that:
(..) stackless adds a further twist to this by allowing tasks to be separated into smaller tasks, Tasklets, which can then be split off the main program to execute on their own. This can be used for fire-and-forget tasks, like sending off an email, or dispatching an event, or for IO operations, e.g. sending and receiving network packets. One tasklet waits for a packet from the network while others continue running the game loop.
It is in some ways like threads, but is non-preemptive and explicitly scheduled, so there are fewer issues with synchronization. Also, switching between tasklets is much faster than thread switching, and you can have a huge number of active tasklets whereas the number of threads is severely limited by the computer hardware.
(got this citation from here)
At PyCon 2009 there was given a very interesting talk, describing why and how Stackless is used at CCP Games.
Also, there is a very good introductory material, which describes why stackless is a good solution for Your applications. (it may be somewhat old, but I think that it is worth reading).

EVEOnline is largely programmed in Stackless Python. They have several dev blogs on the use of it. It seems it is very useful for high performance computing.

While I've not used Stackless itself, I have used Greenlet for implementing highly-concurrent network applications. Some of the use cases Linden Lab has put it towards are: high-performance smart proxies, a fast system for distributing commands over huge numbers of machines, and an application that does a ton of database writes and reads (at a ratio of about 1:2, which is very write-heavy, so it's spending most of its time waiting for the database to return), and a web-crawler-type-thing for internal web data. Basically any app that's expecting to have to do a lot of network I/O will benefit from being able to create a bajillion lightweight threads. 10,000 connected clients doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.
Stackless or Greenlet aren't really a complete solution, though. They are very low-level and you're going to have to do a lot of monkeywork to build an application with them that uses them to their fullest. I know this because I maintain a library that provides a networking and scheduling layer on top of Greenlet, specifically because writing apps is so much easier with it. There are a bunch of these now; I maintain Eventlet, but also there is Concurrence, Chiral, and probably a few more that I don't know about.
If the sort of app you want to write sounds like what I wrote about, consider one of these libraries. The choice of Stackless vs Greenlet is somewhat less important than deciding what library best suits the needs of what you want to do.

The basic usefulness for green threads, the way I see it, is to implement a system in which you have a large amount of objects that do high latency operations. A concrete example would be communicating with other machines:
def Run():
# Do stuff
request_information() # This call might block
# Proceed doing more stuff
Threads let you write the above code naturally, but if the number of objects is large enough, threads just cannot perform adequately. But you can use green threads even for in really large amounts. The request_information() above could switch out to some scheduler where other work is waiting and return later. You get all the benefits of being able to call "blocking" functions as if they return immediately without using threads.
This is obviously very useful for any kind of distributed computing if you want to write code in a straightforward way.
It is also interesting for multiple cores to mitigate waiting for locks:
def Run():
# Do some calculations
green_lock(the_foo)
# Do some more calculations
The green_lock function would basically attempt to acquire the lock and just switch out to a main scheduler if it fails due to other cores using the object.
Again, green threads are being used to mitigate blocking, allowing code to be written naturally and still perform well.

Threading in Python [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
What are the modules used to write multi-threaded applications in Python? I'm aware of the basic concurrency mechanisms provided by the language and also of Stackless Python, but what are their respective strengths and weaknesses?

In order of increasing complexity:
Use the threading module
Pros:
It's really easy to run any function (any callable in fact) in its
own thread.
Sharing data is if not easy (locks are never easy :), at
least simple.
Cons:
As mentioned by Juergen Python threads cannot actually concurrently access state in the interpreter (there's one big lock, the infamous Global Interpreter Lock.) What that means in practice is that threads are useful for I/O bound tasks (networking, writing to disk, and so on), but not at all useful for doing concurrent computation.
Use the multiprocessing module
In the simple use case this looks exactly like using threading except each task is run in its own process not its own thread. (Almost literally: If you take Eli's example, and replace threading with multiprocessing, Thread, with Process, and Queue (the module) with multiprocessing.Queue, it should run just fine.)
Pros:
Actual concurrency for all tasks (no Global Interpreter Lock).
Scales to multiple processors, can even scale to multiple machines.
Cons:
Processes are slower than threads.
Data sharing between processes is trickier than with threads.
Memory is not implicitly shared. You either have to explicitly share it or you have to pickle variables and send them back and forth. This is safer, but harder. (If it matters increasingly the Python developers seem to be pushing people in this direction.)
Use an event model, such as Twisted
Pros:
You get extremely fine control over priority, over what executes when.
Cons:
Even with a good library, asynchronous programming is usually harder than threaded programming, hard both in terms of understanding what's supposed to happen and in terms of debugging what actually is happening.
In all cases I'm assuming you already understand many of the issues involved with multitasking, specifically the tricky issue of how to share data between tasks. If for some reason you don't know when and how to use locks and conditions you have to start with those. Multitasking code is full of subtleties and gotchas, and it's really best to have a good understanding of concepts before you start.

You've already gotten a fair variety of answers, from "fake threads" all the way to external frameworks, but I've seen nobody mention Queue.Queue -- the "secret sauce" of CPython threading.
To expand: as long as you don't need to overlap pure-Python CPU-heavy processing (in which case you need multiprocessing -- but it comes with its own Queue implementation, too, so you can with some needed cautions apply the general advice I'm giving;-), Python's built-in threading will do... but it will do it much better if you use it advisedly, e.g., as follows.
"Forget" shared memory, supposedly the main plus of threading vs multiprocessing -- it doesn't work well, it doesn't scale well, never has, never will. Use shared memory only for data structures that are set up once before you spawn sub-threads and never changed afterwards -- for everything else, make a single thread responsible for that resource, and communicate with that thread via Queue.
Devote a specialized thread to every resource you'd normally think to protect by locks: a mutable data structure or cohesive group thereof, a connection to an external process (a DB, an XMLRPC server, etc), an external file, etc, etc. Get a small thread pool going for general purpose tasks that don't have or need a dedicated resource of that kind -- don't spawn threads as and when needed, or the thread-switching overhead will overwhelm you.
Communication between two threads is always via Queue.Queue -- a form of message passing, the only sane foundation for multiprocessing (besides transactional-memory, which is promising but for which I know of no production-worthy implementations except In Haskell).
Each dedicated thread managing a single resource (or small cohesive set of resources) listens for requests on a specific Queue.Queue instance. Threads in a pool wait on a single shared Queue.Queue (Queue is solidly threadsafe and won't fail you in this).
Threads that just need to queue up a request on some queue (shared or dedicated) do so without waiting for results, and move on. Threads that eventually DO need a result or confirmation for a request queue a pair (request, receivingqueue) with an instance of Queue.Queue they just made, and eventually, when the response or confirmation is indispensable in order to proceed, they get (waiting) from their receivingqueue. Be sure you're ready to get error-responses as well as real responses or confirmations (Twisted's deferreds are great at organizing this kind of structured response, BTW!).
You can also use Queue to "park" instances of resources which can be used by any one thread but never be shared among multiple threads at one time (DB connections with some DBAPI compoents, cursors with others, etc) -- this lets you relax the dedicated-thread requirement in favor of more pooling (a pool thread that gets from the shared queue a request needing a queueable resource will get that resource from the apppropriate queue, waiting if necessary, etc etc).
Twisted is actually a good way to organize this minuet (or square dance as the case may be), not just thanks to deferreds but because of its sound, solid, highly scalable base architecture: you may arrange things to use threads or subprocesses only when truly warranted, while doing most things normally considered thread-worthy in a single event-driven thread.
But, I realize Twisted is not for everybody -- the "dedicate or pool resources, use Queue up the wazoo, never do anything needing a Lock or, Guido forbid, any synchronization procedure even more advanced, such as semaphore or condition" approach can still be used even if you just can't wrap your head around async event-driven methodologies, and will still deliver more reliability and performance than any other widely-applicable threading approach I've ever stumbled upon.

It depends on what you're trying to do, but I'm partial to just using the threading module in the standard library because it makes it really easy to take any function and just run it in a separate thread.
from threading import Thread
def f():
...
def g(arg1, arg2, arg3=None):
....
Thread(target=f).start()
Thread(target=g, args=[5, 6], kwargs={"arg3": 12}).start()
And so on. I often have a producer/consumer setup using a synchronized queue provided by the Queue module
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
q = Queue()
def consumer():
while True:
print sum(q.get())
def producer(data_source):
for line in data_source:
q.put( map(int, line.split()) )
Thread(target=producer, args=[SOME_INPUT_FILE_OR_SOMETHING]).start()
for i in range(10):
Thread(target=consumer).start()

Kamaelia is a python framework for building applications with lots of communicating processes.
(source: kamaelia.org) Kamaelia - Concurrency made useful, fun
In Kamaelia you build systems from simple components that talk to each other. This speeds development, massively aids maintenance and also means you build naturally concurrent software. It's intended to be accessible by any developer, including novices. It also makes it fun :)
What sort of systems? Network servers, clients, desktop applications, pygame based games, transcode systems and pipelines, digital TV systems, spam eradicators, teaching tools, and a fair amount more :)
Here's a video from Pycon 2009. It starts by comparing Kamaelia to Twisted and Parallel Python and then gives a hands on demonstration of Kamaelia.
Easy Concurrency with Kamaelia - Part 1 (59:08)
Easy Concurrency with Kamaelia - Part 2 (18:15)

Regarding Kamaelia, the answer above doesn't really cover the benefit here. Kamaelia's approach provides a unified interface, which is pragmatic not perfect, for dealing with threads, generators & processes in a single system for concurrency.
Fundamentally it provides a metaphor of a running thing which has inboxes, and outboxes. You send messages to outboxes, and when wired together, messages flow from outboxes to inboxes. This metaphor/API remains the same whether you're using generators, threads or processes, or speaking to other systems.
The "not perfect" part is due to syntactic sugar not being added as yet for inboxes and outboxes (though this is under discussion) - there is a focus on safety/usability in the system.
Taking the producer consumer example using bare threading above, this becomes this in Kamaelia:
Pipeline(Producer(), Consumer() )
In this example it doesn't matter if these are threaded components or otherwise, the only difference is between them from a usage perspective is the baseclass for the component. Generator components communicate using lists, threaded components using Queue.Queues and process based using os.pipes.
The reason behind this approach though is to make it harder to make hard to debug bugs. In threading - or any shared memory concurrency you have, the number one problem you face is accidentally broken shared data updates. By using message passing you eliminate one class of bugs.
If you use bare threading and locks everywhere you're generally working on the assumption that when you write code that you won't make any mistakes. Whilst we all aspire to that, it's very rare that will happen. By wrapping up the locking behaviour in one place you simplify where things can go wrong. (Context handlers help, but don't help with accidental updates outside the context handler)
Obviously not every piece of code can be written as message passing and shared style which is why Kamaelia also has a simple software transactional memory (STM), which is a really neat idea with a nasty name - it's more like version control for variables - ie check out some variables, update them and commit back. If you get a clash you rinse and repeat.
Relevant links:
Europython 09 tutorial
Monthly releases
Mailing list
Examples
Example Apps
Reusable components (generator & thread)
Anyway, I hope that's a useful answer. FWIW, the core reason behind Kamaelia's setup is to make concurrency safer & easier to use in python systems, without the tail wagging the dog. (ie the big bucket of components
I can understand why the other Kamaelia answer was modded down, since even to me it looks more like an ad than an answer. As the author of Kamaelia it's nice to see enthusiasm though I hope this contains a bit more relevant content :-)
And that's my way of saying, please take the caveat that this answer is by definition biased, but for me, Kamaelia's aim is to try and wrap what is IMO best practice. I'd suggest trying a few systems out, and seeing which works for you. (also if this is inappropriate for stack overflow, sorry - I'm new to this forum :-)

I would use the Microthreads (Tasklets) of Stackless Python, if I had to use threads at all.
A whole online game (massivly multiplayer) is build around Stackless and its multithreading principle -- since the original is just to slow for the massivly multiplayer property of the game.
Threads in CPython are widely discouraged. One reason is the GIL -- a global interpreter lock -- that serializes threading for many parts of the execution. My experiance is, that it is really difficult to create fast applications this way. My example codings where all slower with threading -- with one core (but many waits for input should have made some performance boosts possible).
With CPython, rather use seperate processes if possible.

If you really want to get your hands dirty, you can try using generators to fake coroutines. It probably isn't the most efficient in terms of work involved, but coroutines do offer you very fine control of co-operative multitasking rather than pre-emptive multitasking you'll find elsewhere.
One advantage you'll find is that by and large, you will not need locks or mutexes when using co-operative multitasking, but the more important advantage for me was the nearly-zero switching speed between "threads". Of course, Stackless Python is said to be very good for that as well; and then there's Erlang, if it doesn't have to be Python.
Probably the biggest disadvantage in co-operative multitasking is the general lack of workaround for blocking I/O. And in the faked coroutines, you'll also encounter the issue that you can't switch "threads" from anything but the top level of the stack within a thread.
After you've made an even slightly complex application with fake coroutines, you'll really begin to appreciate the work that goes into process scheduling at the OS level.

Writing a socket-based server in Python, recommended strategies?

I was recently reading this document which lists a number of strategies that could be employed to implement a socket server. Namely, they are:
Serve many clients with each thread, and use nonblocking I/O and level-triggered readiness notification
Serve many clients with each thread, and use nonblocking I/O and readiness change notification
Serve many clients with each server thread, and use asynchronous I/O
serve one client with each server thread, and use blocking I/O
Build the server code into the kernel
Now, I would appreciate a hint on which should be used in CPython, which we know has some good points, and some bad points. I am mostly interested in performance under high concurrency, and yes a number of the current implementations are too slow.
So if I may start with the easy one, "5" is out, as I am not going to be hacking anything into the kernel.
"4" Also looks like it must be out because of the GIL. Of course, you could use multiprocessing in place of threads here, and that does give a significant boost. Blocking IO also has the advantage of being easier to understand.
And here my knowledge wanes a bit:
"1" is traditional select or poll which could be trivially combined with multiprocessing.
"2" is the readiness-change notification, used by the newer epoll and kqueue
"3" I am not sure there are any kernel implementations for this that have Python wrappers.
So, in Python we have a bag of great tools like Twisted. Perhaps they are a better approach, though I have benchmarked Twisted and found it too slow on a multiple processor machine. Perhaps having 4 twisteds with a load balancer might do it, I don't know. Any advice would be appreciated.

asyncore is basically "1" - It uses select internally, and you just have one thread handling all requests. According to the docs it can also use poll. (EDIT: Removed Twisted reference, I thought it used asyncore, but I was wrong).
"2" might be implemented with python-epoll (Just googled it - never seen it before).
EDIT: (from the comments) In python 2.6 the select module has epoll, kqueue and kevent build-in (on supported platforms). So you don't need any external libraries to do edge-triggered serving.
Don't rule out "4", as the GIL will be dropped when a thread is actually doing or waiting for IO-operations (most of the time probably). It doesn't make sense if you've got huge numbers of connections of course. If you've got lots of processing to do, then python may not make sense with any of these schemes.
For flexibility maybe look at Twisted?
In practice your problem boils down to how much processing you are going to do for requests. If you've got a lot of processing, and need to take advantage of multi-core parallel operation, then you'll probably need multiple processes. On the other hand if you just need to listen on lots of connections, then select or epoll, with a small number of threads should work.

How about "fork"? (I assume that is what the ForkingMixIn does) If the requests are handled in a "shared nothing" (other than DB or file system) architecture, fork() starts pretty quickly on most *nixes, and you don't have to worry about all the silly bugs and complications from threading.
Threads are a design illness forced on us by OSes with too-heavy-weight processes, IMHO. Cloning a page table with copy-on-write attributes seems a small price, especially if you are running an interpreter anyway.
Sorry I can't be more specific, but I'm more of a Perl-transitioning-to-Ruby programmer (when I'm not slaving over masses of Java at work)
Update: I finally did some timings on thread vs fork in my "spare time". Check it out:
http://roboprogs.com/devel/2009.04.html
Expanded:
http://roboprogs.com/devel/2009.12.html

One sollution is gevent. Gevent maries a libevent based event polling with lightweight cooperative task switching implemented by greenlet.
What you get is all the performance and scalability of an event system with the elegance and straightforward model of blocking IO programing.
(I don't know what the SO convention about answering to realy old questions is, but decided I'd still add my 2 cents)

Can I suggest additional links?
cogen is a crossplatform library for network oriented, coroutine based programming using the enhanced generators from python 2.5. On the main page of cogen project there're links to several projects with similar purpose.

I like Douglas' answer, but as an aside...
You could use a centralized dispatch thread/process that listens for readiness notifications using select and delegates to a pool of worker threads/processes to help accomplish your parallelism goals.
As Douglas mentioned, however, the GIL won't be held during most lengthy I/O operations (since no Python-API things are happening), so if it's response latency you're concerned about you can try moving the critical portions of your code to CPython API.

http://docs.python.org/library/socketserver.html#asynchronous-mixins
As for multi-processor (multi-core) machines. With CPython due to GIL you'll need at least one process per core, to scale. As you say that you need CPython, you might try to benchmark that with ForkingMixIn. With Linux 2.6 might give some interesting results.
Other way is to use Stackless Python. That's how EVE solved it. But I understand that it's not always possible.