We Keep Coding

Will the collections.deque "pop" methods release GIL?

I have a piece of code where I have a processing thread and a monitor thread. In the processing thread, I have a call to collections.deque.popleft function. I wanted to know if this function releases GIL because I want run my monitor thread even when the processing function is blocked on the popleft function

Instead of answering this specific question I'll answer a different question:
What is the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL), and when will it block my program?
In short, the GIL protects the interpreter's state from becoming corrupted by concurrent threads.
For a sense of what it is for, Consider the low level implementation of dict, which somewhere has an array of keys, organized for quick lookup. When you write some code like:
myDict['foo'] = 'bar'
the python interpreter needs to adjust its collection of keys. That might involve things like making more room for the additional key as well as adding the particular key to that array.
If multiple, concurrent threads are modifying that dict, then one thread might reallocate the array while another is in the middle of modifying it, which could cause some unpredictable, probably bad behavior (anything from corrupted data, segfault or heartbleed like memory content leak of sensitive data or arbitrary code execution)
Since that's not the sort of state you can reasonably describe or prevent at the level of your python application, the run-time goes to great lengths to prevent those sorts of problems from occuring. The way it does it is that certain parts of the interpreter, such as the modification of a dict, is surrounded by a PyGILState_Ensure()/PyGILState_Release() pair, so that critical operations always reach a consistent state.
Note however that the scope of this lock is very narrow; it doesn't attempt to protect from general data races, it won't protect you from writing a program with multiple threads overwriting each other's work in a common container (say, a collections.deque), only that even if you do write such a program, it wont' cause the interpreter to crash, you'll always have a valid, working deque. You can add additional application locks, as in queue.Queue to give good concurrent semantics to your application.
Since every operation that the GIL protects is a change in the interpreter state, it never blocks on external events; since those events won't cause the interpreter state to be changed, a signaling condition variable cannot corrupt memory.
The only time you might have a problem is when you have several unblocked threads, since they are potentially all executing code in the low level interpreter, they'll compete for the GIL, and only one thread can hold it, blocking other threads that also want to do some computation.
Unless you are writing C extensions, you probably don't need to worry about it, and unless you have multiple, compute bound threads, in python, you won't be affected by it, either.

Yes -- deque is thread-safe (thanks #hemanths) http://docs.python.org/2/library/collections.html#collections.deque
No, because collections.deque is not thread-safe. Use a Queue, or make your own deque subclass.

How to use python multiprocessing proxy objects in multithreading

I am using pyhton's multiprocessing package in a standard client-server model.
I have a few types of objects in the server that I register through the BaseManager.register method, and use from the client through proxies (based on the AutoProxy class).
I've had random errors pop up when I was using those proxies from multiple client threads, and following some reading I discovered that the Proxy instances themselves are not thread safe. See from the python multiprocessing documentation:
Thread safety of proxies
Do not use a proxy object from more than one thread unless you protect it with a lock.
(There is never a problem with different processes using the same proxy.)
My scenario fits this perfectly then. OK, I know why it fails. But I want it to work :) so I seek an advice - what is the best method to make this thread-safe?
My particular case being that (a) I work with a single client thread 90% of the time, (b) the actual objects behind the proxy are thread safe, and (c) that I would like to call multiple methods of the same proxied-object concurrently.
As always, Internet, those who help me shall live on and never die! Those who do their best might get a consolation prize too.
Thanks,
Yonatan

Unfortunately, this issue probably doesn't relate to too many people :(
Here's what we're doing, for future readers:
We'll be using regular thread locks to guard usage of the 'main' proxy
The main proxy provides proxies to other instances in the server process, and these are thread-specific in our contexts, so we'll be using those without a lock
Not a very interesting solution, yeah, I know. We also considered making a tailored version of the AutoProxy (the package supports that) with built-in locking. We might do that if this scenario repeats in our system. Auto-locking should be done carefully, since this is done 'behind the scenes' and can lead to race-condition deadlocks.
If anyone has similar issues in the future - please comment or contact me directly.

Are there any concerns I should have about storing a Python Lock object in a Beaker session?

There is a certain page on my website where I want to prevent the same user from visiting it twice in a row. To prevent this, I plan to create a Lock object (from Python's threading library). However, I would need to store that across sessions. Is there anything I should watch out for when trying to store a Lock object in a session (specifically a Beaker session)?

Storing a threading.Lock instance in a session (or anywhere else that needs serialization) is a terrible idea, and presumably you'll get an exception if you try to (since such an object cannot be serialized, e.g., it cannot be pickled). A traditional approach for cooperative serialization of processes relies on file locking (on "artificial" files e.g. in a directory such as /tmp/locks/<username> if you want the locking to be per-user, as you indicate). I believe the wikipedia entry does a good job of describing the general area; if you tell us what OS you're running order, we might suggest something more specific (unfortunately I do not believe there is a cross-platform solution for this).

I just realized that this was a terrible question since locking a lock and saving it to the session takes two steps thus defeating the purpose of the lock's atomic actions.

Python: time a method call and stop it if time is exceeded

I need to dynamically load code (comes as source), run it and get the results. The code that I load always includes a run method, which returns the needed results. Everything looks ridiculously easy, as usual in Python, since I can do
exec(source) #source includes run() definition
result = run(params)
#do stuff with result
The only problem is, the run() method in the dynamically generated code can potentially not terminate, so I need to only run it for up to x seconds. I could spawn a new thread for this, and specify a time for .join() method, but then I cannot easily get the result out of it (or can I). Performance is also an issue to consider, since all of this is happening in a long while loop
Any suggestions on how to proceed?
Edit: to clear things up per dcrosta's request: the loaded code is not untrusted, but generated automatically on the machine. The purpose for this is genetic programming.

The only "really good" solutions -- imposing essentially no overhead -- are going to be based on SIGALRM, either directly or through a nice abstraction layer; but as already remarked Windows does not support this. Threads are no use, not because it's hard to get results out (that would be trivial, with a Queue!), but because forcibly terminating a runaway thread in a nice cross-platform way is unfeasible.
This leaves high-overhead multiprocessing as the only viable cross-platform solution. You'll want a process pool to reduce process-spawning overhead (since presumably the need to kill a runaway function is only occasional, most of the time you'll be able to reuse an existing process by sending it new functions to execute). Again, Queue (the multiprocessing kind) makes getting results back easy (albeit with a modicum more caution than for the threading case, since in the multiprocessing case deadlocks are possible).
If you don't need to strictly serialize the executions of your functions, but rather can arrange your architecture to try two or more of them in parallel, AND are running on a multi-core machine (or multiple machines on a fast LAN), then suddenly multiprocessing becomes a high-performance solution, easily paying back for the spawning and IPC overhead and more, exactly because you can exploit as many processors (or nodes in a cluster) as you can use.

You could use the multiprocessing library to run the code in a separate process, and call .join() on the process to wait for it to finish, with the timeout parameter set to whatever you want. The library provides several ways of getting data back from another process - using a Value object (seen in the Shared Memory example on that page) is probably sufficient. You can use the terminate() call on the process if you really need to, though it's not recommended.

You could also use Stackless Python, as it allows for cooperative scheduling of microthreads. Here you can specify a maximum number of instructions to execute before returning. Setting up the routines and getting the return value out is a little more tricky though.

I could spawn a new thread for this, and specify a time for .join() method, but then I cannot easily get the result out of it
If the timeout expires, that means the method didn't finish, so there's no result to get. If you have incremental results, you can store them somewhere and read them out however you like (keeping threadsafety in mind).
Using SIGALRM-based systems is dicey, because it can deliver async signals at any time, even during an except or finally handler where you're not expecting one. (Other languages deal with this better, unfortunately.) For example:
try:
# code
finally:
cleanup1()
cleanup2()
cleanup3()
A signal passed up via SIGALRM might happen during cleanup2(), which would cause cleanup3() to never be executed. Python simply does not have a way to terminate a running thread in a way that's both uncooperative and safe.
You should just have the code check the timeout on its own.
import threading
from datetime import datetime, timedelta
local = threading.local()
class ExecutionTimeout(Exception): pass
def start(max_duration = timedelta(seconds=1)):
local.start_time = datetime.now()
local.max_duration = max_duration
def check():
if datetime.now() - local.start_time > local.max_duration:
raise ExecutionTimeout()
def do_work():
start()
while True:
check()
# do stuff here
return 10
try:
print do_work()
except ExecutionTimeout:
print "Timed out"
(Of course, this belongs in a module, so the code would actually look like "timeout.start()"; "timeout.check()".)
If you're generating code dynamically, then generate a timeout.check() call at the start of each loop.

Consider using the stopit package that could be useful in some cases you need timeout control. Its doc emphasizes the limitations.
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/stopit

a quick google for "python timeout" reveals a TimeoutFunction class

Executing untrusted code is dangerous, and should usually be avoided unless it's impossible to do so. I think you're right to be worried about the time of the run() method, but the run() method could do other things as well: delete all your files, open sockets and make network connections, begin cracking your password and email the result back to an attacker, etc.
Perhaps if you can give some more detail on what the dynamically loaded code does, the SO community can help suggest alternatives.

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.