We Keep Coding

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

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

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

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

Python Using Multiprocessing

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.

Simple multithread for loop in Python

I searched everywhere and I don't find any simple example of iterating a loop with multithreading.
For example, how can I multithread this loop?
for item in range(0, 1000):
print(item)
Is there any way to cut it in like 4 threads, so each thread has 250 iterations?

Easiest way is with multiprocessing.dummy (which uses threads instead of processes) and a Pool
import multiprocessing.dummy as mp
def do_print(s):
print s
if __name__=="__main__":
p=mp.Pool(4)
p.map(do_print,range(0,10)) # range(0,1000) if you want to replicate your example
p.close()
p.join()
Maybe you want to try real multiprocessing, too if you want to better utilize multiple CPUs but there are several caveats and guidelines to follow then.
Possibly other methods of Pool would better suit your needs - depending on what you are actually trying to do.

You'll have to do the splitting manually:
import threading
def ThFun(start, stop):
for item in range(start, stop):
print item
for n in range(0, 1000, 100):
stop = n + 100 if n + 100 <= 1000 else 1000
threading.Thread(target = ThFun, args = (n, stop)).start()
This code uses multithreading, which means that everything will be run within a single Python process (i.e. only one Python interpreter will be launched).
Multiprocessing, discussed in the other answer, means running some code in several Python interpreters (in several processes, not threads). This may make use of all the CPU cores available, so this is useful when you're focusing on the speed of your code (print a ton of numbers until the terminal hates you!), not simply on parallel processing. 1
1. multiprocessing.dummy turns out to be a wrapper around the threading module. multiprocessing and multiprocessing.dummy have the same interface, but the first module does parallel processing using processes, while the latter - using threads.

Since Python 3.2, the concurrent.futures standard library provides primitives to concurrently map a function across iterables. Since map and for are closely related, this allows to easily convert a for loop into a multi-threaded/multi-processed loop:
from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor
with ThreadPoolExecutor() as executor:
executor.map(print, range(0, 1000))

Python simplest form of multiprocessing

Ive been trying to read up on threading and multiprocessing but all the examples are to intricate and advanced for my level of python/programming knowlegde. I want to run a function, which consists of a while loop, and while that loop runs I want to continue with the program and eventually change the condition for the while-loop and end that process. This is the code:
class Example():
def __init__(self):
self.condition = False
def func1(self):
self.condition = True
while self.condition:
print "Still looping"
time.sleep(1)
print "Finished loop"
def end_loop(self):
self.condition = False
The I make the following function-calls:
ex = Example()
ex.func1()
time.sleep(5)
ex.end_loop()
What I want is for the func1 to run for 5s before the end_loop() is called and changes the condition and ends the loop and thus also the function. I.e I want one process to start and "go" into func1 and at the same time I want time.sleep(5) to be called, so the processes "split" when arriving at func1, one process entering the function while the other continues down the program and start with the time.sleep(5) execution.
This must be the most basic example of a multiprocess, still Ive had trouble finding a simple way to do it!
Thank you
EDIT1: regarding do_something. In my real problem do_something is replaced by some code that communicates with another program via a socket and receives packages with coordinates every 0.02s and stores them in membervariables of the class. I want this constant updating of the coordinates to start and then be able to to read the coordinates via other functions at the same time.
However that is not so relevant. What if do_something is replaced by:
time.sleep(1)
print "Still looping"
How do I solve my problem then?
EDIT2: I have tried multiprocessing like this:
from multiprocessing import Process
ex = Example()
p1 = Process(target=ex.func1())
p2 = Process(target=ex.end_loop())
p1.start()
time.sleep(5)
p2.start()
When I ran this, I never got to p2.start(), so that did not help. Even if it had this is not really what Im looking for either. What I want would be just to start the process p1, and then continue with time.sleep and ex.end_loop()

The first problem with your code are the calls
p1 = Process(target=ex.func1())
p2 = Process(target=ex.end_loop())
With ex.func1() you're calling the function and pass the return value as target parameter. Since the function doesn't return anything, you're effectively calling
p1 = Process(target=None)
p2 = Process(target=None)
which makes, of course, no sense.
After fixing that, the next problem will be shared data: when using the multiprocessing package, you implement concurrency using multiple processes which, by default, cannot simply share data afaik. Have a look at Sharing state between processes in the package's documentation to read about this. Especially take the first sentence into account: "when doing concurrent programming it is usually best to avoid using shared state as far as possible"!
So you might want to also have a look at Exchanging objects between processes to read about how to send/receive data between two different processes. So, instead of simply setting a flag to stop the loop, it might be better to send a message to signal the loop should be terminated.
Also note that processes are a heavyweight form of multiprocessing, they spawn multiple OS processes which comes with a relatively big overhead. multiprocessing's main purpose is to avoid problems imposed by Python's Global Interpreter Lock (google about this to read more...) If your problem is'nt much more complex than what you've told us, you might want to use the threading package instead: threads come with less overhead than processes and also allow to access the same data (although you really should read about synchronization when doing this...)
I'm afraid, multiprocessing is an inherently complex subject. So I think you will need to advance your programming/python skills to successfully use it. But I'm sure you'll manage this, the python documentation about this is comprehensive and there are a lot of other resources about this.

To tackle your EDIT2 problem, you could try using the shared memory map Value.
import time
from multiprocessing import Process, Value
class Example():
def func1(self, cond):
while (cond.value == 1):
print('do something')
time.sleep(1)
return
if __name__ == '__main__':
ex = Example()
cond = Value('i', 1)
proc = Process(target=ex.func1, args=(cond,))
proc.start()
time.sleep(5)
cond.value = 0
proc.join()
(Note the target=ex.func1 without the parentheses and the comma after cond in args=(cond,).)
But look at the answer provided by MartinStettner to find a good solution.

What kind of problems (if any) would there be combining asyncio with multiprocessing?

As almost everyone is aware when they first look at threading in Python, there is the GIL that makes life miserable for people who actually want to do processing in parallel - or at least give it a chance.
I am currently looking at implementing something like the Reactor pattern. Effectively I want to listen for incoming socket connections on one thread-like, and when someone tries to connect, accept that connection and pass it along to another thread-like for processing.
I'm not (yet) sure what kind of load I might be facing. I know there is currently setup a 2MB cap on incoming messages. Theoretically we could get thousands per second (though I don't know if practically we've seen anything like that). The amount of time spent processing a message isn't terribly important, though obviously quicker would be better.
I was looking into the Reactor pattern, and developed a small example using the multiprocessing library that (at least in testing) seems to work just fine. However, now/soon we'll have the asyncio library available, which would handle the event loop for me.
Is there anything that could bite me by combining asyncio and multiprocessing?

You should be able to safely combine asyncio and multiprocessing without too much trouble, though you shouldn't be using multiprocessing directly. The cardinal sin of asyncio (and any other event-loop based asynchronous framework) is blocking the event loop. If you try to use multiprocessing directly, any time you block to wait for a child process, you're going to block the event loop. Obviously, this is bad.
The simplest way to avoid this is to use BaseEventLoop.run_in_executor to execute a function in a concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor. ProcessPoolExecutor is a process pool implemented using multiprocessing.Process, but asyncio has built-in support for executing a function in it without blocking the event loop. Here's a simple example:
import time
import asyncio
from concurrent.futures import ProcessPoolExecutor
def blocking_func(x):
time.sleep(x) # Pretend this is expensive calculations
return x * 5
#asyncio.coroutine
def main():
#pool = multiprocessing.Pool()
#out = pool.apply(blocking_func, args=(10,)) # This blocks the event loop.
executor = ProcessPoolExecutor()
out = yield from loop.run_in_executor(executor, blocking_func, 10) # This does not
print(out)
if __name__ == "__main__":
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.run_until_complete(main())
For the majority of cases, this is function alone is good enough. If you find yourself needing other constructs from multiprocessing, like Queue, Event, Manager, etc., there is a third-party library called aioprocessing (full disclosure: I wrote it), that provides asyncio-compatible versions of all the multiprocessing data structures. Here's an example demoing that:
import time
import asyncio
import aioprocessing
import multiprocessing
def func(queue, event, lock, items):
with lock:
event.set()
for item in items:
time.sleep(3)
queue.put(item+5)
queue.close()
#asyncio.coroutine
def example(queue, event, lock):
l = [1,2,3,4,5]
p = aioprocessing.AioProcess(target=func, args=(queue, event, lock, l))
p.start()
while True:
result = yield from queue.coro_get()
if result is None:
break
print("Got result {}".format(result))
yield from p.coro_join()
#asyncio.coroutine
def example2(queue, event, lock):
yield from event.coro_wait()
with (yield from lock):
yield from queue.coro_put(78)
yield from queue.coro_put(None) # Shut down the worker
if __name__ == "__main__":
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
queue = aioprocessing.AioQueue()
lock = aioprocessing.AioLock()
event = aioprocessing.AioEvent()
tasks = [
asyncio.async(example(queue, event, lock)),
asyncio.async(example2(queue, event, lock)),
]
loop.run_until_complete(asyncio.wait(tasks))
loop.close()

Yes, there are quite a few bits that may (or may not) bite you.
When you run something like asyncio it expects to run on one thread or process. This does not (by itself) work with parallel processing. You somehow have to distribute the work while leaving the IO operations (specifically those on sockets) in a single thread/process.
While your idea to hand off individual connections to a different handler process is nice, it is hard to implement. The first obstacle is that you need a way to pull the connection out of asyncio without closing it. The next obstacle is that you cannot simply send a file descriptor to a different process unless you use platform-specific (probably Linux) code from a C-extension.
Note that the multiprocessing module is known to create a number of threads for communication. Most of the time when you use communication structures (such as Queues), a thread is spawned. Unfortunately those threads are not completely invisible. For instance they can fail to tear down cleanly (when you intend to terminate your program), but depending on their number the resource usage may be noticeable on its own.
If you really intend to handle individual connections in individual processes, I suggest to examine different approaches. For instance you can put a socket into listen mode and then simultaneously accept connections from multiple worker processes in parallel. Once a worker is finished processing a request, it can go accept the next connection, so you still use less resources than forking a process for each connection. Spamassassin and Apache (mpm prefork) can use this worker model for instance. It might end up easier and more robust depending on your use case. Specifically you can make your workers die after serving a configured number of requests and be respawned by a master process thereby eliminating much of the negative effects of memory leaks.

Based on #dano's answer above I wrote this function to replace places where I used to use multiprocess pool + map.
def asyncio_friendly_multiproc_map(fn: Callable, l: list):
"""
This is designed to replace the use of this pattern:
with multiprocessing.Pool(5) as p:
results = p.map(analyze_day, list_of_days)
By letting caller drop in replace:
asyncio_friendly_multiproc_map(analyze_day, list_of_days)
"""
tasks = []
with ProcessPoolExecutor(5) as executor:
for e in l:
tasks.append(asyncio.get_event_loop().run_in_executor(executor, fn, e))
res = asyncio.get_event_loop().run_until_complete(asyncio.gather(*tasks))
return res

See PEP 3156, in particular the section on Thread interaction:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3156/#thread-interaction
This documents clearly the new asyncio methods you might use, including run_in_executor(). Note that the Executor is defined in concurrent.futures, I suggest you also have a look there.