The following does not work
one.py
import shared
shared.value = 'Hello'
raw_input('A cheap way to keep process alive..')
two.py
import shared
print shared.value
run on two command lines as:
>>python one.py
>>python two.py
(the second one gets an attribute error, rightly so).
Is there a way to accomplish this, that is, share a variable between two scripts?
Hope it's OK to jot down my notes about this issue here.
First of all, I appreciate the example in the OP a lot, because that is where I started as well - although it made me think shared is some built-in Python module, until I found a complete example at [Tutor] Global Variables between Modules ??.
However, when I looked for "sharing variables between scripts" (or processes) - besides the case when a Python script needs to use variables defined in other Python source files (but not necessarily running processes) - I mostly stumbled upon two other use cases:
A script forks itself into multiple child processes, which then run in parallel (possibly on multiple processors) on the same PC
A script spawns multiple other child processes, which then run in parallel (possibly on multiple processors) on the same PC
As such, most hits regarding "shared variables" and "interprocess communication" (IPC) discuss cases like these two; however, in both of these cases one can observe a "parent", to which the "children" usually have a reference.
What I am interested in, however, is running multiple invocations of the same script, ran independently, and sharing data between those (as in Python: how to share an object instance across multiple invocations of a script), in a singleton/single instance mode. That kind of problem is not really addressed by the above two cases - instead, it essentially reduces to the example in OP (sharing variables across two scripts).
Now, when dealing with this problem in Perl, there is IPC::Shareable; which "allows you to tie a variable to shared memory", using "an integer number or 4 character string[1] that serves as a common identifier for data across process space". Thus, there are no temporary files, nor networking setups - which I find great for my use case; so I was looking for the same in Python.
However, as accepted answer by #Drewfer notes: "You're not going to be able to do what you want without storing the information somewhere external to the two instances of the interpreter"; or in other words: either you have to use a networking/socket setup - or you have to use temporary files (ergo, no shared RAM for "totally separate python sessions").
Now, even with these considerations, it is kinda difficult to find working examples (except for pickle) - also in the docs for mmap and multiprocessing. I have managed to find some other examples - which also describe some pitfalls that the docs do not mention:
Usage of mmap: working code in two different scripts at Sharing Python data between processes using mmap | schmichael's blog
Demonstrates how both scripts change the shared value
Note that here a temporary file is created as storage for saved data - mmap is just a special interface for accessing this temporary file
Usage of multiprocessing: working code at:
Python multiprocessing RemoteManager under a multiprocessing.Process - working example of SyncManager (via manager.start()) with shared Queue; server(s) writes, clients read (shared data)
Comparison of the multiprocessing module and pyro? - working example of BaseManager (via server.serve_forever()) with shared custom class; server writes, client reads and writes
How to synchronize a python dict with multiprocessing - this answer has a great explanation of multiprocessing pitfalls, and is a working example of SyncManager (via manager.start()) with shared dict; server does nothing, client reads and writes
Thanks to these examples, I came up with an example, which essentially does the same as the mmap example, with approaches from the "synchronize a python dict" example - using BaseManager (via manager.start() through file path address) with shared list; both server and client read and write (pasted below). Note that:
multiprocessing managers can be started either via manager.start() or server.serve_forever()
serve_forever() locks - start() doesn't
There is auto-logging facility in multiprocessing: it seems to work fine with start()ed processes - but seems to ignore the ones that serve_forever()
The address specification in multiprocessing can be IP (socket) or temporary file (possibly a pipe?) path; in multiprocessing docs:
Most examples use multiprocessing.Manager() - this is just a function (not class instantiation) which returns a SyncManager, which is a special subclass of BaseManager; and uses start() - but not for IPC between independently ran scripts; here a file path is used
Few other examples serve_forever() approach for IPC between independently ran scripts; here IP/socket address is used
If an address is not specified, then an temp file path is used automatically (see 16.6.2.12. Logging for an example of how to see this)
In addition to all the pitfalls in the "synchronize a python dict" post, there are additional ones in case of a list. That post notes:
All manipulations of the dict must be done with methods and not dict assignments (syncdict["blast"] = 2 will fail miserably because of the way multiprocessing shares custom objects)
The workaround to dict['key'] getting and setting, is the use of the dict public methods get and update. The problem is that there are no such public methods as alternative for list[index]; thus, for a shared list, in addition we have to register __getitem__ and __setitem__ methods (which are private for list) as exposed, which means we also have to re-register all the public methods for list as well :/
Well, I think those were the most critical things; these are the two scripts - they can just be ran in separate terminals (server first); note developed on Linux with Python 2.7:
a.py (server):
import multiprocessing
import multiprocessing.managers
import logging
logger = multiprocessing.log_to_stderr()
logger.setLevel(logging.INFO)
class MyListManager(multiprocessing.managers.BaseManager):
pass
syncarr = []
def get_arr():
return syncarr
def main():
# print dir([]) # cannot do `exposed = dir([])`!! manually:
MyListManager.register("syncarr", get_arr, exposed=['__getitem__', '__setitem__', '__str__', 'append', 'count', 'extend', 'index', 'insert', 'pop', 'remove', 'reverse', 'sort'])
manager = MyListManager(address=('/tmp/mypipe'), authkey='')
manager.start()
# we don't use the same name as `syncarr` here (although we could);
# just to see that `syncarr_tmp` is actually <AutoProxy[syncarr] object>
# so we also have to expose `__str__` method in order to print its list values!
syncarr_tmp = manager.syncarr()
print("syncarr (master):", syncarr, "syncarr_tmp:", syncarr_tmp)
print("syncarr initial:", syncarr_tmp.__str__())
syncarr_tmp.append(140)
syncarr_tmp.append("hello")
print("syncarr set:", str(syncarr_tmp))
raw_input('Now run b.py and press ENTER')
print
print 'Changing [0]'
syncarr_tmp.__setitem__(0, 250)
print 'Changing [1]'
syncarr_tmp.__setitem__(1, "foo")
new_i = raw_input('Enter a new int value for [0]: ')
syncarr_tmp.__setitem__(0, int(new_i))
raw_input("Press any key (NOT Ctrl-C!) to kill server (but kill client first)".center(50, "-"))
manager.shutdown()
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
b.py (client)
import time
import multiprocessing
import multiprocessing.managers
import logging
logger = multiprocessing.log_to_stderr()
logger.setLevel(logging.INFO)
class MyListManager(multiprocessing.managers.BaseManager):
pass
MyListManager.register("syncarr")
def main():
manager = MyListManager(address=('/tmp/mypipe'), authkey='')
manager.connect()
syncarr = manager.syncarr()
print "arr = %s" % (dir(syncarr))
# note here we need not bother with __str__
# syncarr can be printed as a list without a problem:
print "List at start:", syncarr
print "Changing from client"
syncarr.append(30)
print "List now:", syncarr
o0 = None
o1 = None
while 1:
new_0 = syncarr.__getitem__(0) # syncarr[0]
new_1 = syncarr.__getitem__(1) # syncarr[1]
if o0 != new_0 or o1 != new_1:
print 'o0: %s => %s' % (str(o0), str(new_0))
print 'o1: %s => %s' % (str(o1), str(new_1))
print "List is:", syncarr
print 'Press Ctrl-C to exit'
o0 = new_0
o1 = new_1
time.sleep(1)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
As a final remark, on Linux /tmp/mypipe is created - but is 0 bytes, and has attributes srwxr-xr-x (for a socket); I guess this makes me happy, as I neither have to worry about network ports, nor about temporary files as such :)
Other related questions:
Python: Possible to share in-memory data between 2 separate processes (very good explanation)
Efficient Python to Python IPC
Python: Sending a variable to another script
You're not going to be able to do what you want without storing the information somewhere external to the two instances of the interpreter.
If it's just simple variables you want, you can easily dump a python dict to a file with the pickle module in script one and then re-load it in script two.
Example:
one.py
import pickle
shared = {"Foo":"Bar", "Parrot":"Dead"}
fp = open("shared.pkl","w")
pickle.dump(shared, fp)
two.py
import pickle
fp = open("shared.pkl")
shared = pickle.load(fp)
print shared["Foo"]
sudo apt-get install memcached python-memcache
one.py
import memcache
shared = memcache.Client(['127.0.0.1:11211'], debug=0)
shared.set('Value', 'Hello')
two.py
import memcache
shared = memcache.Client(['127.0.0.1:11211'], debug=0)
print shared.get('Value')
What you're trying to do here (store a shared state in a Python module over separate python interpreters) won't work.
A value in a module can be updated by one module and then read by another module, but this must be within the same Python interpreter. What you seem to be doing here is actually a sort of interprocess communication; this could be accomplished via socket communication between the two processes, but it is significantly less trivial than what you are expecting to have work here.
you can use the relative simple mmap file.
you can use the shared.py to store the common constants. The following code will work across different python interpreters \ scripts \processes
shared.py:
MMAP_SIZE = 16*1024
MMAP_NAME = 'Global\\SHARED_MMAP_NAME'
* The "Global" is windows syntax for global names
one.py:
from shared import MMAP_SIZE,MMAP_NAME
def write_to_mmap():
map_file = mmap.mmap(-1,MMAP_SIZE,tagname=MMAP_NAME,access=mmap.ACCESS_WRITE)
map_file.seek(0)
map_file.write('hello\n')
ret = map_file.flush() != 0
if sys.platform.startswith('win'):
assert(ret != 0)
else:
assert(ret == 0)
two.py:
from shared import MMAP_SIZE,MMAP_NAME
def read_from_mmap():
map_file = mmap.mmap(-1,MMAP_SIZE,tagname=MMAP_NAME,access=mmap.ACCESS_READ)
map_file.seek(0)
data = map_file.readline().rstrip('\n')
map_file.close()
print data
*This code was written for windows, linux might need little adjustments
more info at - https://docs.python.org/2/library/mmap.html
Share a dynamic variable by Redis:
script_one.py
from redis import Redis
from time import sleep
cli = Redis('localhost')
shared_var = 1
while True:
cli.set('share_place', shared_var)
shared_var += 1
sleep(1)
Run script_one in a terminal (a process):
$ python script_one.py
script_two.py
from redis import Redis
from time import sleep
cli = Redis('localhost')
while True:
print(int(cli.get('share_place')))
sleep(1)
Run script_two in another terminal (another process):
$ python script_two.py
Out:
1
2
3
4
5
...
Dependencies:
$ pip install redis
$ apt-get install redis-server
I'd advise that you use the multiprocessing module. You can't run two scripts from the commandline, but you can have two separate processes easily speak to each other.
From the doc's examples:
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue
def f(q):
q.put([42, None, 'hello'])
if __name__ == '__main__':
q = Queue()
p = Process(target=f, args=(q,))
p.start()
print q.get() # prints "[42, None, 'hello']"
p.join()
You need to store the variable in some sort of persistent file. There are several modules to do this, depending on your exact need.
The pickle and cPickle module can save and load most python objects to file.
The shelve module can store python objects in a dictionary-like structure (using pickle behind the scenes).
The dbm/bsddb/dbhash/gdm modules can store string variables in a dictionary-like structure.
The sqlite3 module can store data in a lightweight SQL database.
The biggest problem with most of these are that they are not synchronised across different processes - if one process reads a value while another is writing to the datastore then you may get incorrect data or data corruption. To get round this you will need to write your own file locking mechanism or use a full-blown database.
If you wanna read and modify shared data between 2 scripts which run separately, a good solution would be to take advantage of python multiprocessing module and use a Pipe() or a Queue() (see differences here). This way you get to sync scripts and avoid problems regarding concurrency and global variables (like what happens if both scripts wanna modify a variable at the same time).
The best part about using pipes/queues is that you can pass python objects through them.
Also there are methods to avoid waiting for data if there hasn't been passed yet (queue.empty() and pipeConn.poll()).
See an example using Queue() below:
# main.py
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue
from stage1 import Stage1
from stage2 import Stage2
s1= Stage1()
s2= Stage2()
# S1 to S2 communication
queueS1 = Queue() # s1.stage1() writes to queueS1
# S2 to S1 communication
queueS2 = Queue() # s2.stage2() writes to queueS2
# start s2 as another process
s2 = Process(target=s2.stage2, args=(queueS1, queueS2))
s2.daemon = True
s2.start() # Launch the stage2 process
s1.stage1(queueS1, queueS2) # start sending stuff from s1 to s2
s2.join() # wait till s2 daemon finishes
# stage1.py
import time
import random
class Stage1:
def stage1(self, queueS1, queueS2):
print("stage1")
lala = []
lis = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
for i in range(len(lis)):
# to avoid unnecessary waiting
if not queueS2.empty():
msg = queueS2.get() # get msg from s2
print("! ! ! stage1 RECEIVED from s2:", msg)
lala = [6, 7, 8] # now that a msg was received, further msgs will be different
time.sleep(1) # work
random.shuffle(lis)
queueS1.put(lis + lala)
queueS1.put('s1 is DONE')
# stage2.py
import time
class Stage2:
def stage2(self, queueS1, queueS2):
print("stage2")
while True:
msg = queueS1.get() # wait till there is a msg from s1
print("- - - stage2 RECEIVED from s1:", msg)
if msg == 's1 is DONE ':
break # ends loop
time.sleep(1) # work
queueS2.put("update lists")
EDIT: just found that you can use queue.get(False) to avoid blockage when receiving data. This way there's no need to check first if the queue is empty. This is no possible if you use pipes.
Use text files or environnement variables. Since the two run separatly, you can't really do what you are trying to do.
In your example, the first script runs to completion, and then the second script runs. That means you need some sort of persistent state. Other answers have suggested using text files or Python's pickle module. Personally I am lazy, and I wouldn't use a text file when I could use pickle; why should I write a parser to parse my own text file format?
Instead of pickle you could also use the json module to store it as JSON. This might be preferable if you want to share the data to non-Python programs, as JSON is a simple and common standard. If your Python doesn't have json, get simplejson.
If your needs go beyond pickle or json -- say you actually want to have two Python programs executing at the same time and updating the persistent state variables in real time -- I suggest you use the SQLite database. Use an ORM to abstract the database away, and it's super easy. For SQLite and Python, I recommend Autumn ORM.
This method seems straight forward for me:
class SharedClass:
def __init__(self):
self.data = {}
def set_data(self, name, value):
self.data[name] = value
def get_data(self, name):
try:
return self.data[name]
except:
return "none"
def reset_data(self):
self.data = {}
sharedClass = SharedClass()
PS : you can set the data with a parameter name and a value for it, and to access the value you can use the get_data method, below is the example:
to set the data
example 1:
sharedClass.set_data("name","Jon Snow")
example 2:
sharedClass.set_data("email","jon#got.com")\
to get the data
sharedClass.get_data("email")\
to reset the entire state simply use
sharedClass.reset_data()
Its kind of accessing data from a json object (dict in this case)
Hope this helps....
You could use the basic from and import functions in python to import the variable into two.py. For example:
from filename import variable
That should import the variable from the file.
(Of course you should replace filename with one.py, and replace variable with the variable you want to share to two.py.)
You can also solve this problem by making the variable as global
python first.py
class Temp:
def __init__(self):
self.first = None
global var1
var1 = Temp()
var1.first = 1
print(var1.first)
python second.py
import first as One
print(One.var1.first)
Related
I've never done anything with multiprocessing before, but I recently ran into a problem with one of my projects taking an excessive amount of time to run. I have about 336,000 files I need to process, and a traditional for loop would likely take about a week to run.
There are two loops to do this, but they are effectively identical in what they return so I've only included one.
import json
import os
from tqdm import tqdm
import multiprocessing as mp
jsons = os.listdir('/content/drive/My Drive/mrp_workflow/JSONs')
materials = [None] * len(jsons)
def asyncJSONs(file, index):
try:
with open('/content/drive/My Drive/mrp_workflow/JSONs/{}'.format(file)) as f:
data = json.loads(f.read())
properties = process_dict(data, {})
properties['name'] = file.split('.')[0]
materials[index] = properties
except:
print("Error parsing at {}".format(file))
process_list = []
i = 0
for file in tqdm(jsons):
p = mp.Process(target=asyncJSONs,args=(file,i))
p.start()
process_list.append(p)
i += 1
for process in process_list:
process.join()
Everything in that relating to multiprocessing was cobbled together from a collection of google searches and articles, so I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't remotely correct. For example, the 'i' variable is a dirty attempt to keep the information in some kind of order.
What I'm trying to do is load information from those JSON files and store it in the materials variable. But when I run my current code nothing is stored in materials.
As you can read in other answers - processes don't share memory and you can't set value directly in materials. Function has to use return to send result back to main process and it has to wait for result and get it.
It can be simpler with Pool. It doesn't need to use queue manually. And it should return results in the same order as data in all_jsons. And you can set how many processes to run at the same time so it will not block CPU for other processes in system.
But it can't use tqdm.
I couldn't test it but it can be something like this
import os
import json
from multiprocessing import Pool
# --- functions ---
def asyncJSONs(filename):
try:
fullpath = os.path.join(folder, filename)
with open(fullpath) as f:
data = json.loads(f.read())
properties = process_dict(data, {})
properties['name'] = filename.split('.')[0]
return properties
except:
print("Error parsing at {}".format(filename))
# --- main ---
# for all processes (on some systems it may have to be outside `__main__`)
folder = '/content/drive/My Drive/mrp_workflow/JSONs'
if __name__ == '__main__':
# code only for main process
all_jsons = os.listdir(folder)
with Pool(5) as p:
materials = p.map(asyncJSONs, all_jsons)
for item in materials:
print(item)
BTW:
Other modules: concurrent.futures, joblib, ray,
Going to mention a totally different way of solving this problem. Don't bother trying to append all the data to the same list. Extract the data you need, and append it to some target file in ndjson/jsonlines format. That's just where, instead of objects part of a json array [{},{}...], you have separate objects on each line.
{"foo": "bar"}
{"foo": "spam"}
{"eggs": "jam"}
The workflow looks like this:
spawn N workers with a manifest of files to process and the output file to write to. You don't even need MP, you could use a tool like rush to parallelize.
worker parses data, generates the output dict
worker opens the output file with append flag. dump the data and flush immediately:
with open(out_file, 'a') as fp:
print(json.dumps(data), file=fp, flush=True)
Flush ensure that as long as your data is less than the buffer size on your kernel (usually several MB), your different processes won't stomp on each other and conflict writes. If they do get conflicted, you may need to write to a separate output file for each worker, and then join them all.
You can join the files and/or convert to regular JSON array if needed using jq. To be honest, just embrace jsonlines. It's a way better data format for long lists of objects, since you don't have to parse the whole thing in memory.
You need to understand how multiprocessing works. It starts a brand new process for EACH task, each with a brand new Python interpreter, which runs your script all over again. These processes do not share memory in any way. The other processes get a COPY of your globals, but they obviously can't be the same memory.
If you need to send information back, you can using a multiprocessing.queue. Have the function stuff the results in a queue, while your main code waits for stuff to magically appear in the queue.
Also PLEASE read the instructions in the multiprocessing docs about main. Each new process will re-execute all the code in your main file. Thus, any one-time stuff absolutely must be contained in a
if __name__ == "__main__":
block. This is one case where the practice of putting your mainline code into a function called main() is a "best practice".
What is taking all the time here? Is it reading the files? If so, then you might be able to do this with multithreading instead of multiprocessing. However, if you are limited by disk speed, then no amount of multiprocessing is going to reduce your run time.
I'm having an issue with instances not retaining changes to attributes, or even keeping new attributes that are created. I think I've narrowed it down to the fact that my script takes advantage of multiprocessing, and I'm thinking that changes occurring to instances in separate process threads are not 'remembered' when the script returns to the main thread.
Basically, I have several sets of data which I need to process in parallel. The data is stored as an attribute, and is altered via several methods in the class. At the conclusion of processing, I'm hoping to return to the main thread and concatenate the data from each of the object instances. However, as described above, when I try to access the instance attribute with the data after the parallel processing bit is done, there's nothing there. It's as if any changes enacted during the multiprocessing bit are 'forgotten'.
Is there an obvious solution to fix this? Or do I need to rebuild my code to instead return the processed data rather than just altering/storing it as an instance attribute? I guess an alternative solution would be to serialize the data, and then re-read it in when necessary, rather than just keeping it in memory.
Something maybe worth noting here is that I am using the pathos module rather than python's multiprocessingmodule. I was getting some errors pertaining to pickling, similar to here: Python multiprocessing PicklingError: Can't pickle <type 'function'>. My code is broken across several modules and as mentioned, the data processing methods are contained within a class.
Sorry for the wall of text.
EDIT
Here's my code:
import importlib
import pandas as pd
from pathos.helpers import mp
from provider import Provider
# list of data providers ... length is arbitrary
operating_providers = ['dataprovider1', 'dataprovider2', 'dataprovider3']
# create provider objects for each operating provider
provider_obj_list = []
for name in operating_providers:
loc = 'providers.%s' % name
module = importlib.import_module(loc)
provider_obj = Provider(module)
provider_obj_list.append(provider_obj)
processes = []
for instance in provider_obj_list:
process = mp.Process(target = instance.data_processing_func)
process.daemon = True
process.start()
processes.append(process)
for process in processes:
process.join()
# now that data_processing_func is complete for each set of data,
# stack all the data
stack = pd.concat((instance.data for instance in provider_obj_list))
I have a number of modules (their names listed in operating_providers) that contain attributes specific to their data source. These modules are iteratively imported and passed to new instances of the Provider class, which I created in a separate module (provider). I append each Provider instance to a list (provider_obj_list), and then iteratively create separate processes which call the instance method instance.data_processing_func. This function does some data processing (with each instance accessing completely different data files), and creates new instance attributes along the way, which I need to access when the parallel processing is complete.
I tried using multithreading instead, rather than multiprocessing -- in this case, my instance attributes persisted, which is what I want. However, I am not sure why this happens -- I'll have to study the differences between threading vs. multiprocessing.
Thanks for any help!
Here's some sample code showing how to do what I outlined in comment. I can't test it because I don't have provider or pathos installed, but it should give you a good idea of what I suggested.
import importlib
from pathos.helpers import mp
from provider import Provider
def process_data(loc):
module = importlib.import_module(loc)
provider_obj = Provider(module)
provider_obj.data_processing_func()
if __name__ == '__main__':
# list of data providers ... length is arbitrary
operating_providers = ['dataprovider1', 'dataprovider2', 'dataprovider3']
# create list of provider locations for each operating provider
provider_loc_list = []
for name in operating_providers:
loc = 'providers.%s' % name
provider_loc_list.append(loc)
processes = []
for loc in provider_loc_list:
process = mp.Process(target=process_data, args=(loc,))
process.daemon = True
process.start()
processes.append(process)
for process in processes:
process.join()
I have written a method called 'get_names' which accepts argument as the path of folder containing several python scripts(there could be several folders inside it) and returns the names of all the methods inside those python scripts.
But due the vast number of the python scripts in the folder, it takes a huge amount of time to print the names of all the methods. I am planning to create 3-4 processes which will run on one-third/one-fourth the number of python scripts.
How should I write the method to do this so that my method knows which portion of the script it has to work on?
names = name_loader.get_names(name_prefix=params.get('name_prefix'))
'name_prefix' could be /users/Aditya/workspace/codes/ where 'codes' contains all the python scripts.
You could do something like this:
import multiprocessing
if __name__ == "__main__":
calc_pool = multiprocessing.Pool(4)
path = 'list with your paths'
methode = calc_pool.map(get_names, path)
You may have to edit your method, so it splits the list with python files in 4 sublists, in which case each process will process a sublist, which together are your complete list. For example:
import multiprocessing
if __name__ == "__main__":
calc_pool = multiprocessing.Pool(4)
path = 'list with your paths'
path = split(path, parts = 4)
data_pack = ((path[0]), (path[1]), (path[2]), (path[3]))
methode = calc_pool.map(get_names, data_pack)
In this case you have to pack the data, since .map only accepts one argument. In that case the method split splits your list with paths from something like this:
path = ['path_0', 'path_1', 'path_2', 'path_3']
to something like that:
path = [['path_0'], ['path_1'], ['path_2'], ['path_3']]
Keep in mind that processes of multiprocessing do not share data, and that you want to submit as little data as possible, since sending data to each process is quite slow.
Also this obviously increases CPU and RAM usage.
The reason I would choose multiprocessing over threads is that multiprocessing enables you to actually run tasks parallel, while threads mostly gives you an advantage in I/O tasks.
Edit: Also keep in mind that if __name__ == "__main__": is mandatory on windows systems for multiprocessing to work.
I'm trying to use the fbx python module from autodesk, but it seems I can't thread any operation. This seems due to the GIL not relased. Has anyone found the same issue or am I doing something wrong? When I say it doesn't work, I mean the code doesn't release the thread and I'm not be able to do anything else, while the fbx code is running.
There isn't much of code to post, just to know whether it did happen to anyone to try.
Update:
here is the example code, please note each fbx file is something like 2GB
import os
import fbx
import threading
file_dir = r'../fbxfiles'
def parse_fbx(filepath):
print '-' * (len(filepath) + 9)
print 'parsing:', filepath
manager = fbx.FbxManager.Create()
importer = fbx.FbxImporter.Create(manager, '')
status = importer.Initialize(filepath)
if not status:
raise IOError()
scene = fbx.FbxScene.Create(manager, '')
importer.Import(scene)
# freeup memory
rootNode = scene.GetRootNode()
def traverse(node):
print node.GetName()
for i in range(0, node.GetChildCount()):
child = node.GetChild(i)
traverse(child)
# RUN
traverse(rootNode)
importer.Destroy()
manager.Destroy()
files = os.listdir(file_dir)
tt = []
for file_ in files:
filepath = os.path.join(file_dir, file_)
t = threading.Thread(target=parse_fbx, args=(filepath,))
tt.append(t)
t.start()
One problem I see is with your traverse() function. It's calling itself recursively potentially a huge number of times. Another is having all the threads printing stuff at the same time. Doing that properly requires coordinating access to the shared output device (i.e. the screen). A simple way to do that is by creating and using a global threading.Lock object.
First create a global Lock to prevent threads from printing at same time:
file_dir = '../fbxfiles' # an "r" prefix needed only when path contains backslashes
print_lock = threading.Lock() # add this here
Then make a non-recursive version of traverse() that uses it:
def traverse(rootNode):
with print_lock:
print rootNode.GetName()
for i in range(node.GetChildCount()):
child = node.GetChild(i)
with print_lock:
print child.GetName()
It's not clear to me exactly where the reading of each fbxfile takes place. If it all happens as a result of the importer.Import(scene) call, then that is the only time any other threads will be given a chance to run — unless some I/O is [also] done within the traverse() function.
Since printing is most definitely a form of output, thread switching will also be able to occur when it's done. However, if all the function did was perform computations of some kind, no multi-threading would take place within it during its execution.
Once you get the multi-reading working, you may encounter insufficient memory issues if multiple 2GB fbxfiles are being read into memory simultaneously by the various different threads.
I'm currently using the standard multiprocessing in python to generate a bunch of processes that will run indefinitely. I'm not particularly concerned with performance; each thread is simply watching for a different change on the filesystem, and will take the appropriate action when a file is modified.
Currently, I have a solution that works, for my needs, in Linux. I have a dictionary of functions and arguments that looks like:
job_dict['func1'] = {'target': func1, 'args': (args,)}
For each, I create a process:
import multiprocessing
for k in job_dict.keys():
jobs[k] = multiprocessing.Process(target=job_dict[k]['target'],
args=job_dict[k]['args'])
With this, I can keep track of each one that is running, and, if necessary, restart a job that crashes for any reason.
This does not work in Windows. Many of the functions I'm using are wrappers, using various functools functions, and I get messages about not being able to serialize the functions (see What can multiprocessing and dill do together?). I have not figured out why I do not get this error in Linux, but do in Windows.
If I import dill before starting my processes in Windows, I do not get the serialization error. However, the processes do not actually do anything. I cannot figure out why.
I then switched to the multiprocessing implementation in pathos, but did not find an analog to the simple Process class within the standard multiprocessing module. I was able to generate threads for each job using pathos.pools.ThreadPool. This is not the intended use for map, I'm sure, but it started all the threads, and they ran in Windows:
import pathos
tp = pathos.pools.ThreadPool()
for k in job_dict.keys():
tp.uimap(job_dict[k]['target'], job_dict[k]['args'])
However, now I'm not sure how to monitor whether a thread is still active, which I'm looking for so that I can restart threads that crash for some reason or another. Any suggestions?
I'm the pathos and dill author. The Process class is buried deep within pathos at pathos.helpers.mp.process.Process, where mp itself is the actual fork of the multiprocessing library. Everything in multiprocessing should be accessible from there.
Another thing to know about pathos is that it keeps the pool alive for you until you remove it from the held state. This helps reduce overhead in creating "new" pools. To remove a pool, you do:
>>> # create
>>> p = pathos.pools.ProcessPool()
>>> # remove
>>> p.clear()
There's no such mechanism for a Process however.
For multiprocessing, windows is different than Linux and Macintosh… because windows doesn't have a proper fork like on linux… linux can share objects across processes, while on windows there is no sharing… it's basically a fully independent new process created… and therefore the serialization has to be better for the object to pass across to the other process -- just as if you would send the object to another computer. On, linux, you'd have to do this to get the same behavior:
def check(obj, *args, **kwds):
"""check pickling of an object across another process"""
import subprocess
fail = True
try:
_x = dill.dumps(x, *args, **kwds)
fail = False
finally:
if fail:
print "DUMP FAILED"
msg = "python -c import dill; print dill.loads(%s)" % repr(_x)
print "SUCCESS" if not subprocess.call(msg.split(None,2)) else "LOAD FAILED"