I am using this code:
def startThreads(arrayofkeywords):
global i
i = 0
while len(arrayofkeywords):
try:
if i<maxThreads:
keyword = arrayofkeywords.pop(0)
i = i+1
thread = doStuffWith(keyword)
thread.start()
except KeyboardInterrupt:
sys.exit()
thread.join()
for threading in python, I have almost everything done, but I dont know how to manage the results of each thread, on each thread I have an array of strings as result, how can I join all those arrays into one safely? Because, I if I try writing into a global array, two threads could be writing at the same time.
First, you actually need to save all those thread objects to call join() on them. As written, you're saving only the last one of them, and then only if there isn't an exception.
An easy way to do multithreaded programming is to give each thread all the data it needs to run, and then have it not write to anything outside that working set. If all threads follow that guideline, their writes will not interfere with each other. Then, once a thread has finished, have the main thread only aggregate the results into a global array. This is know as "fork/join parallelism."
If you subclass the Thread object, you can give it space to store that return value without interfering with other threads. Then you can do something like this:
class MyThread(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self, ...):
self.result = []
...
def main():
# doStuffWith() returns a MyThread instance
threads = [ doStuffWith(k).start() for k in arrayofkeywords[:maxThreads] ]
for t in threads:
t.join()
ret = t.result
# process return value here
Edit:
After looking around a bit, it seems like the above method isn't the preferred way to do threads in Python. The above is more of a Java-esque pattern for threads. Instead you could do something like:
def handler(outList)
...
# Modify existing object (important!)
outList.append(1)
...
def doStuffWith(keyword):
...
result = []
thread = Thread(target=handler, args=(result,))
return (thread, result)
def main():
threads = [ doStuffWith(k) for k in arrayofkeywords[:maxThreads] ]
for t in threads:
t[0].start()
for t in threads:
t[0].join()
ret = t[1]
# process return value here
Use a Queue.Queue instance, which is intrinsically thread-safe. Each thread can .put its results to that global instance when it's done, and the main thread (when it knows all working threads are done, by .joining them for example as in #unholysampler's answer) can loop .getting each result from it, and use each result to .extend the "overall result" list, until the queue is emptied.
Edit: there are other big problems with your code -- if the maximum number of threads is less than the number of keywords, it will never terminate (you're trying to start a thread per keyword -- never less -- but if you've already started the max numbers you loop forever to no further purpose).
Consider instead using a threading pool, kind of like the one in this recipe, except that in lieu of queueing callables you'll queue the keywords -- since the callable you want to run in the thread is the same in each thread, just varying the argument. Of course that callable will be changed to peel something from the incoming-tasks queue (with .get) and .put the list of results to the outgoing-results queue when done.
To terminate the N threads you could, after all keywords, .put N "sentinels" (e.g. None, assuming no keyword can be None): a thread's callable will exit if the "keyword" it just pulled is None.
More often than not, Queue.Queue offers the best way to organize threading (and multiprocessing!) architectures in Python, be they generic like in the recipe I pointed you to, or more specialized like I'm suggesting for your use case in the last two paragraphs.
You need to keep pointers to each thread you make. As is, your code only ensures the last created thread finishes. This does not imply that all the ones you started before it have also finished.
def startThreads(arrayofkeywords):
global i
i = 0
threads = []
while len(arrayofkeywords):
try:
if i<maxThreads:
keyword = arrayofkeywords.pop(0)
i = i+1
thread = doStuffWith(keyword)
thread.start()
threads.append(thread)
except KeyboardInterrupt:
sys.exit()
for t in threads:
t.join()
//process results stored in each thread
This also solves the problem of write access because each thread will store it's data locally. Then after all of them are done, you can do the work to combine each threads local data.
I know that this question is a little bit old, but the best way to do this is not to harm yourself too much in the way proposed by other colleagues :)
Please read the reference on Pool. This way you will fork-join your work:
def doStuffWith(keyword):
return keyword + ' processed in thread'
def startThreads(arrayofkeywords):
pool = Pool(processes=maxThreads)
result = pool.map(doStuffWith, arrayofkeywords)
print result
Writing into a global array is fine if you use a semaphore to protect the critical section. You 'acquire' the lock when you want to append to the global array, then 'release' when you are done. This way, only one thread is every appending to the array.
Check out http://docs.python.org/library/threading.html and search for semaphore for more info.
sem = threading.Semaphore()
...
sem.acquire()
# do dangerous stuff
sem.release()
try some semaphore's methods, like acquire and release..
http://docs.python.org/library/threading.html
Related
I know there are a few questions and answers related to hanging threads in Python, but my situation is slightly different as the script is hanging AFTER all the threads have been completed. The threading script is below, but obviously the first 2 functions are simplified massively.
When I run the script shown, it works. When I use my real functions, the script hangs AFTER THE LAST LINE. So, all the scenarios are processed (and a message printed to confirm), logStudyData() then collates all the results and writes to a csv. "Script Complete" is printed. And THEN it hangs.
The script with threading functionality removed runs fine.
I have tried enclosing the main script in try...except but no exception gets logged. If I use a debugger with a breakpoint on the final print and then step it forward, it hangs.
I know there is not much to go on here, but short of including the whole 1500-line script, I don't know hat else to do. Any suggestions welcome!
def runScenario(scenario):
# Do a bunch of stuff
with lock:
# access global variables
pass
pass
def logStudyData():
# Combine results from all scenarios into a df and write to csv
pass
def worker():
global q
while True:
next_scenario = q.get()
if next_scenario is None:
break
runScenario(next_scenario)
print(next_scenario , " is complete")
q.task_done()
import threading
from queue import Queue
global q, lock
q = Queue()
threads = []
scenario_list = ['s1','s2','s3','s4','s5','s6','s7','s8','s9','s10','s11','s12']
num_worker_threads = 6
lock = threading.Lock()
for i in range(num_worker_threads):
print("Thread number ",i)
this_thread = threading.Thread(target=worker)
this_thread.start()
threads.append(this_thread)
for scenario_name in scenario_list:
q.put(scenario_name)
q.join()
print("q.join completed")
logStudyData()
print("script complete")
As the docs for Queue.get say:
Remove and return an item from the queue. If optional args block is true and timeout is None (the default), block if necessary until an item is available. If timeout is a positive number, it blocks at most timeout seconds and raises the Empty exception if no item was available within that time. Otherwise (block is false), return an item if one is immediately available, else raise the Empty exception (timeout is ignored in that case).
In other words, there is no way get can ever return None, except by you calling q.put(None) on the main thread, which you don't do.
Notice that the example directly below those docs does this:
for i in range(num_worker_threads):
q.put(None)
for t in threads:
t.join()
The second one is technically necessary, but you usually get away with not doing it.
But the first one is absolutely necessary. You need to either do this, or come up with some other mechanism to tell your workers to quit. Without that, your main thread just tries to exit, which means it tries to join every worker, but those workers are all blocked forever on a get that will never happen, so your program hangs forever.
Building a thread pool may not be rocket science (if only because rocket scientists tend to need their calculations to be deterministic and hard real-time…), but it's not trivial, either, and there are plenty of things you can get wrong. You may want to consider using one of the two already-built threadpools in the Python standard library, concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor or multiprocessing.dummy.Pool. This would reduce your entire program to:
import concurrent.futures
def work(scenario):
runScenario(scenario)
print(scenario , " is complete")
scenario_list = ['s1','s2','s3','s4','s5','s6','s7','s8','s9','s10','s11','s12']
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=6) as x:
results = list(x.map(work, scenario_list))
print("q.join completed")
logStudyData()
print("script complete")
Obviously you'll still need a lock around any mutable variables you change inside runScenario—although if you're only using a mutable variable there because you couldn't figure out how to return values to the main thread, that's trivial with an Executor: just return the values from work, and then you can use them like this:
for result in x.map(work, scenario_list):
do_something(result)
I want to iterate over a list using 2 thread. One from leading and other from trailing, and put the elements in a Queue on each iteration. But before putting the value in Queue I need to check for existence of the value within Queue (its when that one of the threads has putted that value in Queue), So when this happens I need to stop the thread and return list of traversed values for each thread.
This is what I have tried so far :
from Queue import Queue
from threading import Thread, Event
class ThreadWithReturnValue(Thread):
def __init__(self, group=None, target=None, name=None,
args=(), kwargs={}, Verbose=None):
Thread.__init__(self, group, target, name, args, kwargs, Verbose)
self._return = None
def run(self):
if self._Thread__target is not None:
self._return = self._Thread__target(*self._Thread__args,
**self._Thread__kwargs)
def join(self):
Thread.join(self)
return self._return
main_path = Queue()
def is_in_queue(x, q):
with q.mutex:
return x in q.queue
def a(main_path,g,l=[]):
for i in g:
l.append(i)
print 'a'
if is_in_queue(i,main_path):
return l
main_path.put(i)
def b(main_path,g,l=[]):
for i in g:
l.append(i)
print 'b'
if is_in_queue(i,main_path):
return l
main_path.put(i)
g=['a','b','c','d','e','f','g','h','i','j','k','l']
t1 = ThreadWithReturnValue(target=a, args=(main_path,g))
t2 = ThreadWithReturnValue(target=b, args=(main_path,g[::-1]))
t2.start()
t1.start()
# Wait for all produced items to be consumed
print main_path.join()
I used ThreadWithReturnValue that will create a custom thread that returns the value.
And for membership checking I used the following function :
def is_in_queue(x, q):
with q.mutex:
return x in q.queue
Now if I first start the t1 and then the t2 I will get 12 a then one b then it doesn't do any thing and I need to terminate the python manually!
But if I first run the t2 then t1 I will get the following result:
b
b
b
b
ab
ab
b
b
b
b
a
a
So my questions is that why python treads different in this cases? and how can I terminate the threads and make them communicate with each other?
Before we get into bigger problems, you're not using Queue.join right.
The whole point of this function is that a producer who adds a bunch of items to a queue can wait until the consumer or consumers have finished working on all of those items. This works by having the consumer call task_done after they finish working on each item that they pulled off with get. Once there have been as many task_done calls as put calls, the queue is done. You're not doing a get anywhere, much less a task_done, so there's no way the queue can ever be finished. So, that's why you block forever after the two threads finish.
The first problem here is that your threads are doing almost no work outside of the actual synchronization. If the only thing they do is fight over a queue, only one of them is going to be able to run at a time.
Of course that's common in toy problems, but you have to think through your real problem:
If you're doing a lot of I/O work (listening on sockets, waiting for user input, etc.), threads work great.
If you're doing a lot of CPU work (calculating primes), threads don't work in Python because of the GIL, but processes do.
If you're actually primarily dealing with synchronizing separate tasks, neither one is going to work well (and processes will be worse). It may still be simpler to think in terms of threads, but it'll be the slowest way to do things. You may want to look into coroutines; Greg Ewing has a great demonstration of how to use yield from to use coroutines to build things like schedulers or many-actor simulations.
Next, as I alluded to in your previous question, making threads (or processes) work efficiently with shared state requires holding locks for as short a time as possible.
So, if you have to search a whole queue under a lock, that had better be a constant-time search, not a linear-time search. That's why I suggested using something like an OrderedSet recipe rather than a list, like the one inside the stdlib's Queue.Queue. Then this function:
def is_in_queue(x, q):
with q.mutex:
return x in q.queue
… is only blocking the queue for a tiny fraction of a second—just long enough to look up a hash value in a table, instead of long enough to compare every element in the queue against x.
Finally, I tried to explain about race conditions on your other question, but let me try again.
You need a lock around every complete "transaction" in your code, not just around the individual operations.
For example, if you do this:
with queue locked:
see if x is in the queue
if x was not in the queue:
with queue locked:
add x to the queue
… then it's always possible that x was not in the queue when you checked, but in the time between when you unlocked it and relocked it, someone added it. This is exactly why it's possible for both threads to stop early.
To fix this, you need to put a lock around the whole thing:
with queue locked:
if x is not in the queue:
add x to the queue
Of course this goes directly against what I said before about locking the queue for as short a time as possible. Really, that's what makes multithreading hard in a nutshell. It's easy to write safe code that just locks everything for as long as might conceivably be necessary, but then your code ends up only using a single core, while all the other threads are blocked waiting for the lock. And it's easy to write fast code that just locks everything as briefly as possible, but then it's unsafe and you get garbage values or even crashes all over the place. Figuring out what needs to be a transaction, and how to minimize the work inside those transactions, and how to deal with the multiple locks you'll probably need to make that work without deadlocking them… that's not so easy.
A couple of things that I think can be improved:
Due to the GIL, you might want to use the multiprocessing (rather than threading) module. In general, CPython threading will not cause CPU intensive work to speed up. (Depending on what exactly is the context of your question, it's also possible that multiprocessing won't, but threading almost certainly won't.)
A function like your is_inqueue would likely lead to high contention.
The locked time seems linear in the number of items that need to be traversed:
def is_in_queue(x, q):
with q.mutex:
return x in q.queue
So, instead, you could possibly do the following.
Use multiprocessing with a shared dict:
from multiprocessing import Process, Manager
manager = Manager()
d = manager.dict()
# Fn definitions and such
p1 = Process(target=p1, args=(d,))
p2 = Process(target=p2, args=(d,))
within each function, check for the item like this:
def p1(d):
# Stuff
if 'foo' in d:
return
I have an infinite loop running async but I can't terminate it. Here is a similiar version of my code :
from multiprocessing import Pool
test_pool = Pool(processes=1)
self.button1.clicked.connect(self.starter)
self.button2.clicked.connect(self.stopper)
def starter(self):
global test_pool
test_pool.apply_async(self.automatizer)
def automatizer(self):
i = 0
while i != 0 :
self.job1()
# safe stop point
self.job2()
# safe stop point
self.job3()
# safe stop point
def job1(self):
# doing some stuff
def job2(self):
# doing some stuff
def job3(self):
# doing some stuff
def stopper(self):
global test_pool
test_pool.terminate()
My problem is terminate() inside stopper function doesn't work. I tried to put terminate() inside job1,job2,job3 functions still not working, tried putting at the end of the loop in starter function, again not working. How can I stop this async process ?
While stopping the process at anytime is good enough, is it possible to make it stop at the points I want ? I mean if a stop command (not sure about what command it is) is given to process, I want it to complete the steps to "# safe stop point" marker then terminate the process.
You really should be avoiding the use of terminate() in normal operation. It should only be used in unusual cases, such as hanging or unresponsive processes. The normal way to end a process pool is to call pool.close() followed by pool.join().
These methods do require the function that your pool is executing to return, and your call to pool.join() will block your main process until it does so. I would suggest you add a multiprocess.Queue to give yourself a way to tell your subprocess to exit:
# this import is NOT the same as multiprocessing.Queue - this is here for the
# queue.Empty exception
import Queue
queue = multiprocessing.Queue() # not the same as a Queue.Queue()
def stopper(self):
# don't need "global" keyword to call a global object's method
# it's only necessary if we want to modify a global
queue.put("Stop")
test_pool.close()
test_pool.join()
def automatizer(self):
while True: # cleaner infinite loop - yours was never executing
for func in [self.job1, self.job2, self.job3]: # iterate over methods
func() # call each one
# between each function call, check the queue for "poison pill"
try:
if queue.get(block=False) == "Stop":
return
except Queue.Empty:
pass
Since you didn't provide a more complete code sample, you'll have to figure out where to actually instantiate the multiprocessing.Queue and how to pass things around. Also, the comment from Janne Karila was correct. You should switch your code to use a single Process instead of a pool if you're only using one process at a time anyway. The Process class also uses a blocking join() method to tell it to end once it has returned. The only safe way to end processes at "known safe points" is to implement some kind of interprocess communication like I've done here. Pipes would work as well.
I am trying to fix a bug where multiple threads are writing to a list in memory. Right now I have a thread lock and am occasionally running into problems that are related to the work being done in the threads.
I was hoping to simply make an hash of lists, one for each thread, and remove the thread lock. It seems like each thread could write to its own record without worrying about the others, but perhaps the fact that they are all using the same owning hash would itself be a problem.
Does anyone happen to know if this will work or not? If not, could I, for example, dynamically add a list to a package for each thread? Is that essentially the same thing?
I am far from a threading expert so any advice welcome.
Thanks,
import threading
def job(root_folder,my_list):
for current,files,dirs in os.walk(root):
my_list.extend(files)
time.sleep(1)
my_lists = [[],[],[]]
my_folders = ["C:\\Windows","C:\\Users","C:\\Temp"]
my_threads = []
for folder,a_list in zip(my_folders,my_lists):
my_threads.append(threading.Thread(target=job,args=(folder,a_list)
for thread in my_threads:
thread.start()
for thread in my_threads:
thread.join()
my_full_list = my_lists[0] + my_lists[1] + my_lists[2]
this way each thread just modifies its own list and at the end combines all the individual lists
also as pointed out this gives zero performance gain (actually probably slower than not threading it... ) you may get performance gains using multiprocessing instead ...
Don't use list. Use Queue (python2) or queue (python3).
There is 3 kinds of queue: fifo, lifo and priority. The last one is for ordered data.
You may put data at one side (with thread):
q.put(data)
And get at the other side (maybe in a loop for, say, database):
while not q.empty:
print q.get()
https://docs.python.org/2/library/queue.html
While attempting to store multiprocessing's process instance in multiprocessing list-variable 'poolList` I am getting a following exception:
SimpleQueue objects should only be shared between processes through inheritance
The reason why I would like to store the PROCESS instances in a variable is to be able to terminate all or just some of them later (if for example a PROCESS freezes). If storing a PROCESS in variable is not an option I would like to know how to get or to list all the PROCESSES started by mutliprocessing POOL. That would be very similar to what .current_process() method does. Except .current_process gets only a single process while I need all the processes started or all the processes currently running.
Two questions:
Is it even possible to store an instance of the Process (as a result of mp.current_process()
Currently I am only able to get a single process from inside of the function that the process is running (from inside of myFunct() using .current_process() method).
Instead I would like to to list all the processes currently running by multiprocessing. How to achieve it?
import multiprocessing as mp
poolList=mp.Manager().list()
def myFunct(arg):
print 'myFunct(): current process:', mp.current_process()
try: poolList.append(mp.current_process())
except Exception, e: print e
for i in range(110):
for n in range(500000):
pass
poolDict[arg]=i
print 'myFunct(): completed', arg, poolDict
from multiprocessing import Pool
pool = Pool(processes=2)
myArgsList=['arg1','arg2','arg3']
pool=Pool(processes=2)
pool.map_async(myFunct, myArgsList)
pool.close()
pool.join()
To list the processes started by a Pool()-instance(which is what you mean if I understand you correctly), there is the pool._pool-list. And it contains the instances of the processes.
However, it is not part of the documented interface and hence, really should not be used.
BUT...it seems a little bit unlikely that it would change just like that anyway. I mean, should they stop having an internal list of processes in the pool? And not call that _pool?
And also, it annoys me that there at least isn't a get processes-method. Or something.
And handling it breaking due to some name change should not be that difficult.
But still, use at your own risk:
from multiprocessing import pool
# Have to run in main
if __name__ == '__main__':
# Create 3 worker processes
_my_pool = pool.Pool(3)
# Loop, terminate, and remove from the process list
# Use a copy [:] of the list to remove items correctly
for _curr_process in _my_pool._pool[:]:
print("Terminating process "+ str(_curr_process.pid))
_curr_process.terminate()
_my_pool._pool.remove(_curr_process)
# If you call _repopulate, the pool will again contain 3 worker processes.
_my_pool._repopulate_pool()
for _curr_process in _my_pool._pool[:]:
print("After repopulation "+ str(_curr_process.pid))
The example creates a pool and manually terminates all processes.
It is important that you remember to delete the process you terminate from the pool yourself i you want Pool() to continue working as usual.
_my_pool._repopulate increases the number of working processes to 3 again, not needed to answer the question, but gives a little bit of behind-the-scenes insight.
Yes you can get all active process and perform action based on name of process
e.g
multiprocessing.Process(target=foo, name="refresh-reports")
and then
for p in multiprocessing.active_children():
if p.name == "foo":
p.terminate()
You're creating a managed List object, but then letting the associated Manager object expire.
Process objects are shareable because they aren't pickle-able; that is, they aren't simple.
Oddly the multiprocessing module doesn't have the equivalent of threading.enumerate() -- that is, you can't list all outstanding processes. As a workaround, I just store procs in a list. I never terminate() a process, but do sys.exit(0) in the parent. It's rough, because the workers will leave things in an inconsistent state, but it's okay for smaller programs
To kill a frozen worker, I suggest: 1) worker receives "heartbeat" jobs in a queue every now and then, 2) if parent notices worker A hasn't responded to a heartbeat in a certain amount of time, then p.terminate(). Consider restating the problem in another SO question, as it's interesting.
To be honest the map stuff is much easier than using a Manager.
Here's a Manager example I've used. A worker adds stuff to a shared list. Another worker occasionally wakes up, processes everything on the list, then goes back to sleep. The code also has verbose logs, which are essential for ease in debugging.
source
# producer adds to fixed-sized list; scanner uses them
import logging, multiprocessing, sys, time
def producer(objlist):
'''
add an item to list every sec; ensure fixed size list
'''
logger = multiprocessing.get_logger()
logger.info('start')
while True:
try:
time.sleep(1)
except KeyboardInterrupt:
return
msg = 'ding: {:04d}'.format(int(time.time()) % 10000)
logger.info('put: %s', msg)
del objlist[0]
objlist.append( msg )
def scanner(objlist):
'''
every now and then, run calculation on objlist
'''
logger = multiprocessing.get_logger()
logger.info('start')
while True:
try:
time.sleep(5)
except KeyboardInterrupt:
return
logger.info('items: %s', list(objlist))
def main():
logger = multiprocessing.log_to_stderr(
level=logging.INFO
)
logger.info('setup')
# create fixed-length list, shared between producer & consumer
manager = multiprocessing.Manager()
my_objlist = manager.list( # pylint: disable=E1101
[None] * 10
)
multiprocessing.Process(
target=producer,
args=(my_objlist,),
name='producer',
).start()
multiprocessing.Process(
target=scanner,
args=(my_objlist,),
name='scanner',
).start()
logger.info('running forever')
try:
manager.join() # wait until both workers die
except KeyboardInterrupt:
pass
logger.info('done')
if __name__=='__main__':
main()