I have a function that yields lines from a huge CSV file lazily:
def get_next_line():
with open(sample_csv,'r') as f:
for line in f:
yield line
def do_long_operation(row):
print('Do some operation that takes a long time')
I need to use threads such that each record I get from the above function I can call do_long_operation.
Most places on Internet have examples like this, and I am not very sure if I am on the right path.
import threading
thread_list = []
for i in range(8):
t = threading.Thread(target=do_long_operation, args=(get_next_row from get_next_line))
thread_list.append(t)
for thread in thread_list:
thread.start()
for thread in thread_list:
thread.join()
My questions are:
How do I start only a finite number of threads, say 8?
How do I make sure that each of the threads will get a row from get_next_line?
You could use a thread pool from multiprocessing and map your tasks to a pool of workers:
from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool as Pool
# from multiprocessing import Pool
from random import randint
from time import sleep
def process_line(l):
print l, "started"
sleep(randint(0, 3))
print l, "done"
def get_next_line():
with open("sample.csv", 'r') as f:
for line in f:
yield line
f = get_next_line()
t = Pool(processes=8)
for i in f:
t.map(process_line, (i,))
t.close()
t.join()
This will create eight workers and submit your lines to them, one by one. As soon as a process is "free", it will be allocated a new task.
There is a commented out import statement, too. If you comment out the ThreadPool and import Pool from multiprocessing instead, you will get subprocesses instead of threads, which may be more efficient in your case.
Using a Pool/ThreadPool from multiprocessing to map tasks to a pool of workers and a Queue to control how many tasks are held in memory (so we don't read too far ahead into the huge CSV file if worker processes are slow):
from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool as Pool
# from multiprocessing import Pool
from random import randint
import time, os
from multiprocessing import Queue
def process_line(l):
print("{} started".format(l))
time.sleep(randint(0, 3))
print("{} done".format(l))
def get_next_line():
with open(sample_csv, 'r') as f:
for line in f:
yield line
# use for testing
# def get_next_line():
# for i in range(100):
# print('yielding {}'.format(i))
# yield i
def worker_main(queue):
print("{} working".format(os.getpid()))
while True:
# Get item from queue, block until one is available
item = queue.get(True)
if item == None:
# Shutdown this worker and requeue the item so other workers can shutdown as well
queue.put(None)
break
else:
# Process item
process_line(item)
print("{} done working".format(os.getpid()))
f = get_next_line()
# Use a multiprocessing queue with maxsize
q = Queue(maxsize=5)
# Start workers to process queue items
t = Pool(processes=8, initializer=worker_main, initargs=(q,))
# Enqueue items. This blocks if the queue is full.
for l in f:
q.put(l)
# Enqueue the shutdown message (i.e. None)
q.put(None)
# We need to first close the pool before joining
t.close()
t.join()
Hannu's answer is not the best method.
I ran the code on a 100M rows CSV file. It took me forever to perform the operation.
However, prior to reading his answer, I had written the following code:
def call_processing_rows_pickably(row):
process_row(row)
import csv
from multiprocessing import Pool
import time
import datetime
def process_row(row):
row_to_be_printed = str(row)+str("hola!")
print(row_to_be_printed)
class process_csv():
def __init__(self, file_name):
self.file_name = file_name
def get_row_count(self):
with open(self.file_name) as f:
for i, l in enumerate(f):
pass
self.row_count = i
def select_chunk_size(self):
if(self.row_count>10000000):
self.chunk_size = 100000
return
if(self.row_count>5000000):
self.chunk_size = 50000
return
self.chunk_size = 10000
return
def process_rows(self):
list_de_rows = []
count = 0
with open(self.file_name, 'rb') as file:
reader = csv.reader(file)
for row in reader:
print(count+1)
list_de_rows.append(row)
if(len(list_de_rows) == self.chunk_size):
p.map(call_processing_rows_pickably, list_de_rows)
del list_de_rows[:]
def start_process(self):
self.get_row_count()
self.select_chunk_size()
self.process_rows()
initial = datetime.datetime.now()
p = Pool(4)
ob = process_csv("100M_primes.csv")
ob.start_process()
final = datetime.datetime.now()
print(final-initial)
This took 22 minutes. Obviously, I need to have more improvements. For example, the Fred library in R takes 10 minutes maximum to do this task.
The difference is: I am creating a chunk of 100k rows first, and then I pass it to a function which is mapped by threadpool(here, 4 threads).
Related
I am using the following code to process some pictures for my ML project and I would like to parallelize it.
import multiprocessing as mp
import concurrent.futures
def track_ids(seq):
'''The func is so big I can not put it here'''
ood = {}
for i in seq:
# I load around 500 images and process them
ood[i] = some Value
return ood
seqs = []
for seq in range(1, 10):# len(seqs)+1):
seq = txt+str(seq)
seqs.append(seq)
# serial call of the function
track_ids(seq)
#parallel call of the function
with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor(max_workers=mp.cpu_count()) as ex:
ood_id = ex.map(track_ids, seqs)
if I run the code serially it takes 3.0 minutes but for parallel with concurrent, it takes 3.5 minutes.
can someone please explain why is that? and present a way to solve the problem.
btw, I have 12 cores.
Thanks
Here's a brief example of how one might go about profiling multiprocessing code vs serial execution:
from multiprocessing import Pool
from cProfile import Profile
from pstats import Stats
import concurrent.futures
def track_ids(seq):
'''The func is so big I can not put it here'''
ood = {}
for i in seq:
# I load around 500 images and process them
ood[i] = some Value
return ood
def profile_seq():
p = Profile() #one and only profiler instance
p.enable()
seqs = []
for seq in range(1, 10):# len(seqs)+1):
seq = txt+str(seq)
seqs.append(seq)
# serial call of the function
track_ids(seq)
p.disable()
return Stats(p), seqs
def track_ids_pr(seq):
p = Profile() #profile the child tasks
p.enable()
retval = track_ids(seq)
p.disable()
return (Stats(p, stream="dummy"), retval)
def profile_parallel():
p = Profile() #profile stuff in the main process
p.enable()
with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor(max_workers=mp.cpu_count()) as ex:
retvals = ex.map(track_ids_pr, seqs)
p.disable()
s = Stats(p)
out = []
for ret in retvals:
s.add(ret[0])
out.append(ret[1])
return s, out
if __name__ == "__main__":
stat, retval = profile_parallel()
stat.print_stats()
EDIT: Unfortunately I found out that pstat.Stats objects cannot be used normally with multiprocessing.Queue because it is not pickleable (which is needed for the operation of concurrent.futures). Evidently it normally will store a reference to a file for the purpose of writing statistics to that file, and if none is given, it will by default grab a reference to sys.stdout. We don't actually need that reference however until we actually want to print out the statistics, so we can just give it a temporary value to prevent the pickle error, and then restore an appropriate value later. The following example should be copy-paste-able and run just fine rather than the pseudocode-ish example above.
from multiprocessing import Queue, Process
from cProfile import Profile
from pstats import Stats
import sys
def isprime(x):
for d in range(2, int(x**.5)):
if x % d == 0:
return False
return True
def foo(retq):
p = Profile()
p.enable()
primes = []
max_n = 2**20
for n in range(3, max_n):
if isprime(n):
primes.append(n)
p.disable()
retq.put(Stats(p, stream="dummy")) #Dirty hack: set `stream` to something picklable then override later
if __name__ == "__main__":
q = Queue()
p1 = Process(target=foo, args=(q,))
p1.start()
p2 = Process(target=foo, args=(q,))
p2.start()
s1 = q.get()
s1.stream = sys.stdout #restore original file
s2 = q.get()
# s2.stream #if we are just adding this `Stats` object to another the `stream` just gets thrown away anyway.
s1.add(s2) #add up the stats from both child processes.
s1.print_stats() #s1.stream gets used here, but not before. If you provide a file to write to instead of sys.stdout, it will write to that file)
p1.join()
p2.join()
Consider the following snippet:
import numpy as np
import multiprocessing as mp
import time
def work_standalone(args):
return 2
class Worker:
def __init__(self):
self.data = np.random.random(size=(10000, 10000))
# leave a trace whenever init is called
with open('rnd-%d' % np.random.randint(100), 'a') as f:
f.write('init called\n')
def work_internal(self, args):
return 2
def _run(self, target):
with mp.Pool() as pool:
tasks = [[idx] for idx in range(16)]
result = pool.imap(target, tasks)
for res in result:
pass
def run_internal(self):
self._run(self.work_internal)
def run_standalone(self):
self._run(work_standalone)
if __name__ == '__main__':
t1 = time.time()
Worker().run_standalone()
t2 = time.time()
print(f'Standalone took {t2 - t1:.3f} seconds')
t3 = time.time()
Worker().run_internal()
t4 = time.time()
print(f'Internal took {t3 - t4:.3f} seconds')
I.e. we have an object containing a large variable that uses multiprocessing to parallelize some work that has nothing to do with that large variable, i.e. does not read from or write to. The location of the worker process has a huge impact on the runtime:
Standalone took 0.616 seconds
Internal took 19.917 seconds
Why is this happening? I am completely lost. Note that __init__ is only called twice, so the random data is not created for every new process in the pool. The only reason I can think of why this would be slow is that data is copied around, but that would not make sense since it is never used anywhere, and python is supposed to use copy-on-write semantics. Also note that the difference disappears if you make run_internal a static method.
The issue you have is due to the target you are calling from the pool. That target is the function with the reference to Worker instance.
Now, you're right that the __init__() is only called twice. But remember, when you send anything to and from the processes, python will need to pickle the data first.
So, because your target is self.work_internal(), python has to pickle the Worker() instance every time the imap is called. This leads to one issue, self.data being copied over again and again.
The following is the proof. I just added 1 "input" statements, and fixed the last time of time calculation.
import numpy as np
import multiprocessing as mp
import time
def work_standalone(args):
return 2
class Worker:
def __init__(self):
self.data = np.random.random(size=(10000, 10000))
# leave a trace whenever init is called
with open('rnd-%d' % np.random.randint(100), 'a') as f:
f.write('init called\n')
def work_internal(self, args):
return 2
def _run(self, target):
with mp.Pool() as pool:
tasks = [[idx] for idx in range(16)]
result = pool.imap(target, tasks)
input("Wait for analysis")
for res in result:
pass
def run_internal(self):
self._run(self.work_internal)
# self._run(work_standalone)
def run_standalone(self):
self._run(work_standalone)
def work_internal(target):
with mp.Pool() as pool:
tasks = [[idx] for idx in range(16)]
result = pool.imap(target, tasks)
for res in result:
pass
if __name__ == '__main__':
t1 = time.time()
Worker().run_standalone()
t2 = time.time()
print(f'Standalone took {t2 - t1:.3f} seconds')
t3 = time.time()
Worker().run_internal()
t4 = time.time()
print(f'Internal took {t4 - t3:.3f} seconds')
You can run the code, when it shows up "wait for analysis", go and check the memory usage.
Like so
Then on the second time you see the message, press enter. And observe the memory usage increasing and decreasing again.
On the other hand, if you change self._run(self.work_internal) to self._run(work_standalone) you would notice that the speed is very fast, and the memory is not increasing, as well as the time taken is a lot shorter than doing self.work_internal.
Solution
One way to solve your issue is to set self.data as a static class variable. In normal cases, this would prevent instances from having to copy/reinit the variable again. This also prevented the issue from occuring.
class Worker:
data = np.random.random(size=(10000, 10000))
def __init__(self):
pass
...
I am trying to scrape some websites using the python's threading and thread-safe queue module. I'm observing an increase in memory usage as I test on more URLs. Below is my code for your reference:
from collections import defaultdict
from queue import Queue
from threading import Thread
import itertools
from time import time
import newspaper
import requests
import pickle
data = defaultdict(list)
def get_links():
return (url for url in pickle.load(open('urls.pkl','rb')))
# for url in urls[:500]:
# yield url
def download_url(url):
try:
resp = requests.get(url)
article = newspaper.Article(resp.url)
article.download(input_html=resp.content)
article.parse()
data['url'].append(url)
data['result'].append(article.text)
except:
pass
class DownloadWorker(Thread):
def __init__(self, queue):
Thread.__init__(self)
self.queue = queue
def run(self):
while True:
# Get the work from the queue and expand the tuple
link = self.queue.get()
try:
download_url(link)
print(link,"done")
finally:
self.queue.task_done()
print(self.queue.qsize())
def main():
ts = time()
links = get_links()
# Create a queue to communicate with the worker threads
queue = Queue()
# Create worker threads
for x in range(4):
worker = DownloadWorker(queue)
# Setting daemon to True will let the main thread exit even though the workers are blocking
worker.daemon = True
worker.start()
# Put the tasks into the queue as a tuple
for link in itertools.islice(links,1000):
queue.put(link)
# Causes the main thread to wait for the queue to finish processing all the tasks
queue.join()
pickle.dump(data, open('scrapped_results.pkl','wb'))
print('Took %s mins' %((time() - ts)/60))
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
If tested on 100 URLs the memory consumption stays constant at 0.1% but it increases as the more number of URLs are tested (0.2%,0.4%,0.5%). Max URLs I have tested are 1000. The mix of questions I have is below:
Why memory consumption increase?
Is memory increasing because the queue not getting emptied before it gets filled? My understanding of queue is that it empties itself as the data in the queue gets processed.
Is there a way to keep the memory usage constant by the threads?
Is it because of the data in the defaultdict is getting bigger?
Can timeout help here? Where can I declare a timeout?
Is it the newspaper and requests?
I have a simple for loop which is to print a number from 1 to 9999 with 5 seconds sleep in between. The code is as below:
import time
def run():
length = 10000
for i in range(1, length):
print(i)
time.sleep(5)
run()
I want to apply multiprocessing to run the for loop concurrently with multi-cores. So I amended the code above to take 5 cores:
import multiprocessing as mp
import time
def run():
length = 10000
for i in range(1, length):
print(i)
time.sleep(5)
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = mp.Pool(5)
p.map(run())
p.close()
There is no issue in running the job but it seems like it is not running in parallel with 5 cores. How could I get the code worked as expected?
First, you are running the same 1..9999 loop 5 times, and second, you are executing the run function instead of passing it to the .map() method.
You must prepare your queue before passing it to the Pool instance so that all 5 workers process the same queue:
import multiprocessing as mp
import time
def run(i):
print(i)
time.sleep(5)
if __name__ == '__main__':
length = 10000
queue = range(1, length)
p = mp.Pool(5)
p.map(run, queue)
p.close()
Note that it will process the numbers out of order as explained in the documentation. For example, worker #1 will process 1..500, worker #2 will process 501..1000 etc:
This method chops the iterable into a number of chunks which it submits to the process pool as separate tasks. The (approximate) size of these chunks can be specified by setting chunksize to a positive integer.
If you want to process the numbers more similarly to the single threaded version, set chunksize to 1:
p.map(run, queue, 1)
I am following the principles laid down in this post to safely output the results which will eventually be written to a file. Unfortunately, the code only print 1 and 2, and not 3 to 6.
import os
import argparse
import pandas as pd
import multiprocessing
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue
from time import sleep
def feed(queue, parlist):
for par in parlist:
queue.put(par)
print("Queue size", queue.qsize())
def calc(queueIn, queueOut):
while True:
try:
par=queueIn.get(block=False)
res=doCalculation(par)
queueOut.put((res))
queueIn.task_done()
except:
break
def doCalculation(par):
return par
def write(queue):
while True:
try:
par=queue.get(block=False)
print("response:",par)
except:
break
if __name__ == "__main__":
nthreads = 2
workerQueue = Queue()
writerQueue = Queue()
considerperiod=[1,2,3,4,5,6]
feedProc = Process(target=feed, args=(workerQueue, considerperiod))
calcProc = [Process(target=calc, args=(workerQueue, writerQueue)) for i in range(nthreads)]
writProc = Process(target=write, args=(writerQueue,))
feedProc.start()
feedProc.join()
for p in calcProc:
p.start()
for p in calcProc:
p.join()
writProc.start()
writProc.join()
On running the code it prints,
$ python3 tst.py
Queue size 6
response: 1
response: 2
Also, is it possible to ensure that the write function always outputs 1,2,3,4,5,6 i.e. in the same order in which the data is fed into the feed queue?
The error is somehow with the task_done() call. If you remove that one, then it works, don't ask me why (IMO that's a bug). But the way it works then is that the queueIn.get(block=False) call throws an exception because the queue is empty. This might be just enough for your use case, a better way though would be to use sentinels (as suggested in the multiprocessing docs, see last example). Here's a little rewrite so your program uses sentinels:
import os
import argparse
import multiprocessing
from multiprocessing import Process, Queue
from time import sleep
def feed(queue, parlist, nthreads):
for par in parlist:
queue.put(par)
for i in range(nthreads):
queue.put(None)
print("Queue size", queue.qsize())
def calc(queueIn, queueOut):
while True:
par=queueIn.get()
if par is None:
break
res=doCalculation(par)
queueOut.put((res))
def doCalculation(par):
return par
def write(queue):
while not queue.empty():
par=queue.get()
print("response:",par)
if __name__ == "__main__":
nthreads = 2
workerQueue = Queue()
writerQueue = Queue()
considerperiod=[1,2,3,4,5,6]
feedProc = Process(target=feed, args=(workerQueue, considerperiod, nthreads))
calcProc = [Process(target=calc, args=(workerQueue, writerQueue)) for i in range(nthreads)]
writProc = Process(target=write, args=(writerQueue,))
feedProc.start()
feedProc.join()
for p in calcProc:
p.start()
for p in calcProc:
p.join()
writProc.start()
writProc.join()
A few things to note:
the sentinel is putting a None into the queue. Note that you need one sentinel for every worker process.
for the write function you don't need to do the sentinel handling as there's only one process and you don't need to handle concurrency (if you would do the empty() and then get() thingie in your calc function you would run into a problem if e.g. there's only one item left in the queue and both workers check empty() at the same time and then both want to do get() and then one of them is locked forever)
you don't need to put feed and write into processes, just put them into your main function as you don't want to run it in parallel anyway.
how can I have the same order in output as in input? [...] I guess multiprocessing.map can do this
Yes map keeps the order. Rewriting your program into something simpler (as you don't need the workerQueue and writerQueue and adding random sleeps to prove that the output is still in order:
from multiprocessing import Pool
import time
import random
def calc(val):
time.sleep(random.random())
return val
if __name__ == "__main__":
considerperiod=[1,2,3,4,5,6]
with Pool(processes=2) as pool:
print(pool.map(calc, considerperiod))