Message365279

This issue tracker **has been migrated to GitHub**,
and is currently **read-only**.

For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author | mouse07410 |
---|---|

Recipients | mouse07410, ned.deily, ronaldoussoren |

Date | 2020-03-29.21:49:36 |

SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |

Marked as misclassified | Yes |

Message-id | <1585518578.2.0.0489480686513.issue40106@roundup.psfhosted.org> |

In-reply-to |

Content | |
---|---|

MacOS Catalina 10.15.3 and 10.15.4. Python-3.8.2 (also tested with 3.7.7, which confirmed the problem being in the fix described in https://bugs.python.org/issue33725. Trying to use "multiprocessor" with Python-3.8 and with the new default of `set_start_method('spawn')` is nothing but a disaster. Not doing join() leads to consistent crashes, like described here https://bugs.python.org/issue33725#msg365249 Adding p.join() immediately after p.start() seems to work, but increases the total run-time by factor between two and four, user time by factor of five, and system time by factor of ten. Occasionally even with p.join() I'm getting some processes crashing like shown in https://bugs.python.org/issue33725#msg365249. I found two workarounds: 1. Switch back to 'fork' by explicitly adding `set_start_method('fork') to the __main__. 2. Drop the messy "multiprocessing" package and use "multiprocess" instead, which turns out to be a good and reliable fork of "multiprocessing". If anybody cares to dig deeper into this problem, I'd be happy to provide whatever information that could be helpful. Here's the sample code (again): ``` #!/usr/bin/env python3 # # Test "multiprocessing" package included with Python-3.6+ # # Usage: # ./mylti1.py [nElements [nProcesses [tSleep]]] # # nElements - total number of integers to put in the queue # default: 100 # nProcesses - total number of parallel processes/threads # default: number of physical cores available # tSleep - number of milliseconds for a thread to sleep # after it retrieved an element from the queue # default: 17 # # Algorithm: # 1. Creates a queue and adds nElements integers to it, # 2. Creates nProcesses threads # 3. Each thread extracts an element from the queue and sleeps for tSleep milliseconds # import sys, queue, time import multiprocessing as mp def getElements(q, tSleep, idx): l = [] # list of pulled numbers while True: try: l.append(q.get(True, .001)) time.sleep(tSleep) except queue.Empty: if q.empty(): print(f'worker {idx} done, got {len(l)} numbers') return if __name__ == '__main__': nElements = int(sys.argv[1]) if len(sys.argv) > 1 else 100 nProcesses = int(sys.argv[2]) if len(sys.argv) > 2 else mp.cpu_count() tSleep = float(sys.argv[3]) if len(sys.argv) > 3 else 17 # To make this sample code work reliably and fast, uncomment following line #mp.set_start_method('fork') # Fill the queue with numbers from 0 to nElements q = mp.Queue() for k in range(nElements): q.put(k) # Keep track of worker processes workers = [] # Start worker processes for m in range(nProcesses): p = mp.Process(target=getElements, args=(q, tSleep / 1000, m)) workers.append(p) p.start() # Now do the joining for p in workers: p.join() ``` Here's the timing: ``` $ time python3 multi1.py worker 9 done, got 5 numbers worker 16 done, got 5 numbers worker 6 done, got 5 numbers worker 8 done, got 5 numbers worker 17 done, got 5 numbers worker 3 done, got 5 numbers worker 14 done, got 5 numbers worker 0 done, got 5 numbers worker 15 done, got 4 numbers worker 7 done, got 5 numbers worker 5 done, got 5 numbers worker 12 done, got 5 numbers worker 4 done, got 5 numbers worker 19 done, got 5 numbers worker 18 done, got 5 numbers worker 1 done, got 5 numbers worker 10 done, got 5 numbers worker 2 done, got 5 numbers worker 11 done, got 6 numbers worker 13 done, got 5 numbers real 0m0.325s user 0m1.375s sys 0m0.692s ``` If I comment out the join() and uncomment set_start_method('fork'), the timing is ``` $ time python3 multi1.py worker 0 done, got 5 numbers worker 3 done, got 5 numbers worker 2 done, got 5 numbers worker 1 done, got 5 numbers worker 5 done, got 5 numbers worker 10 done, got 5 numbers worker 6 done, got 5 numbers worker 4 done, got 5 numbers worker 7 done, got 5 numbers worker 9 done, got 5 numbers worker 8 done, got 5 numbers worker 14 done, got 5 numbers worker 11 done, got 5 numbers worker 12 done, got 5 numbers worker 13 done, got 5 numbers worker 16 done, got 5 numbers worker 15 done, got 5 numbers worker 17 done, got 5 numbers worker 18 done, got 5 numbers worker 19 done, got 5 numbers real 0m0.175s user 0m0.073s sys 0m0.070s ``` You can observe the difference. Here's the timing if I don't bother with either join() or set_start_method(), but import "multiprocess" instead: ``` $ time python3 multi2.py worker 0 done, got 5 numbers worker 1 done, got 5 numbers worker 2 done, got 5 numbers worker 4 done, got 5 numbers worker 3 done, got 5 numbers worker 5 done, got 5 numbers worker 6 done, got 5 numbers worker 8 done, got 5 numbers worker 9 done, got 5 numbers worker 7 done, got 5 numbers worker 14 done, got 5 numbers worker 11 done, got 5 numbers worker 13 done, got 5 numbers worker 16 done, got 5 numbers worker 12 done, got 5 numbers worker 10 done, got 5 numbers worker 15 done, got 5 numbers worker 17 done, got 5 numbers worker 18 done, got 5 numbers worker 19 done, got 5 numbers real 0m0.192s user 0m0.089s sys 0m0.076s ``` Also, on a weaker machine with only 4 cores (rather than 20 that ran the above example), the instability of the "multiprocessor"-based code shows: ``` $ time python3.8 multi1.py worker 3 done, got 33 numbers worker 2 done, got 33 numbers worker 1 done, got 34 numbers worker 0 done, got 0 numbers real 0m5.448s user 0m0.339s sys 0m0.196s ``` Observe how one process out of four got nothing from the queue. With "multiprocess" the code runs like a clockwork - each process gets exactly 1/N of the queue: ``` $ time python3.8 multi2.py worker 0 done, got 25 numbers worker 1 done, got 25 numbers worker 2 done, got 25 numbers worker 3 done, got 25 numbers real 0m0.551s user 0m0.082s sys 0m0.044s ``` I think that the best course for "multiprocessor" would be reverting the default to 'fork'. It also looks like for the users the best course would be switching to "multiprocess". |

History | |||
---|---|---|---|

Date | User | Action | Args |

2020-03-29 21:49:38 | mouse07410 | set | recipients: + mouse07410, ronaldoussoren, ned.deily |

2020-03-29 21:49:38 | mouse07410 | set | messageid: <1585518578.2.0.0489480686513.issue40106@roundup.psfhosted.org> |

2020-03-29 21:49:38 | mouse07410 | link | issue40106 messages |

2020-03-29 21:49:36 | mouse07410 | create |