Use concurrent.futures with new tasks for a real-time scenario
Question:
It is fairly easy to do parallel work with Python 3’s concurrent.futures module as shown below.
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=10) as executor:
future_to = {executor.submit(do_work, input, 60): input for input in dictionary}
for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(future_to):
data = future.result()
It is also very handy to insert and retrieve items into a Queue.
q = queue.Queue()
for task in tasks:
q.put(task)
while not q.empty():
q.get()
I have a script running in background listening for updates. Now, in theory assume that, as those updates arrive, I would queue them and do work on them concurrently using the ThreadPoolExecutor.
Now, individually, all of these components work in isolation, and make sense, but how do I go about using them together? I am not aware if it is possible to feed the ThreadPoolExecutor work from the queue in real time unless the data to work from is predetermined?
In a nutshell, all I want to do is, receive updates of say 4 messages a second, shove them in a queue, and get my concurrent.futures to work on them. If I don’t, then I am stuck with a sequential approach which is slow.
Let’s take the canonical example in the Python documentation below:
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=5) as executor:
future_to_url = {executor.submit(load_url, url, 60): url for url in URLS}
for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(future_to_url):
url = future_to_url[future]
try:
data = future.result()
except Exception as exc:
print('%r generated an exception: %s' % (url, exc))
else:
print('%r page is %d bytes' % (url, len(data)))
The list of URLS is fixed. Is it possible to feed this list in real-time and get the worker to process it as they come by, perhaps from a queue for management purposes? I am a bit confused on whether my approach is actually possible?
Answers:
The example from the Python docs, expanded to take its work from a queue. A change to note, is that this code uses concurrent.futures.wait instead of concurrent.futures.as_completed to allow new work to be started while waiting for other work to complete.
import concurrent.futures
import urllib.request
import time
import queue
q = queue.Queue()
URLS = ['http://www.foxnews.com/',
'http://www.cnn.com/',
'http://europe.wsj.com/',
'http://www.bbc.co.uk/',
'http://some-made-up-domain.com/']
def feed_the_workers(spacing):
""" Simulate outside actors sending in work to do, request each url twice """
for url in URLS + URLS:
time.sleep(spacing)
q.put(url)
return "DONE FEEDING"
def load_url(url, timeout):
""" Retrieve a single page and report the URL and contents """
with urllib.request.urlopen(url, timeout=timeout) as conn:
return conn.read()
# We can use a with statement to ensure threads are cleaned up promptly
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=5) as executor:
# start a future for a thread which sends work in through the queue
future_to_url = {
executor.submit(feed_the_workers, 0.25): 'FEEDER DONE'}
while future_to_url:
# check for status of the futures which are currently working
done, not_done = concurrent.futures.wait(
future_to_url, timeout=0.25,
return_when=concurrent.futures.FIRST_COMPLETED)
# if there is incoming work, start a new future
while not q.empty():
# fetch a url from the queue
url = q.get()
# Start the load operation and mark the future with its URL
future_to_url[executor.submit(load_url, url, 60)] = url
# process any completed futures
for future in done:
url = future_to_url[future]
try:
data = future.result()
except Exception as exc:
print('%r generated an exception: %s' % (url, exc))
else:
if url == 'FEEDER DONE':
print(data)
else:
print('%r page is %d bytes' % (url, len(data)))
# remove the now completed future
del future_to_url[future]
Output from fetching each url twice:
'http://www.foxnews.com/' page is 67574 bytes
'http://www.cnn.com/' page is 136975 bytes
'http://www.bbc.co.uk/' page is 193780 bytes
'http://some-made-up-domain.com/' page is 896 bytes
'http://www.foxnews.com/' page is 67574 bytes
'http://www.cnn.com/' page is 136975 bytes
DONE FEEDING
'http://www.bbc.co.uk/' page is 193605 bytes
'http://some-made-up-domain.com/' page is 896 bytes
'http://europe.wsj.com/' page is 874649 bytes
'http://europe.wsj.com/' page is 874649 bytes
At work I found a situation where I wanted to do parallel work on an unbounded stream of data. I created a small library inspired by the excellent answer already provided by Stephen Rauch.
I originally approached this problem by thinking about two separate threads, one that submits work to a queue and one that monitors the queue for any completed tasks and makes more room for new work to come in. This is similar to what Stephen Rauch proposed, where he consumes the stream using a feed_the_workers function that runs in a separate thread.
Talking to one of my colleagues, he helped me realize that you can get away with doing everything in a single thread if you define a buffered iterator that allows you to control how many elements are let out of the input stream every time you are ready to submit more work to the thread pool.
So we introduce the BufferedIter class
class BufferedIter(object):
def __init__(self, iterator):
self.iter = iterator
def nextN(self, n):
vals = []
for _ in range(n):
vals.append(next(self.iter))
return vals
which allows us to define the stream processor in the following way
import logging
import queue
import signal
import sys
import time
from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor, wait, ALL_COMPLETED
level = logging.DEBUG
log = logging.getLogger(__name__)
handler = logging.StreamHandler(sys.stdout)
handler.setFormatter(logging.Formatter('%(asctime)s %(message)s'))
handler.setLevel(level)
log.addHandler(handler)
log.setLevel(level)
WAIT_SLEEP = 1 # second, adjust this based on the timescale of your tasks
def stream_processor(input_stream, task, num_workers):
# Use a queue to signal shutdown.
shutting_down = queue.Queue()
def shutdown(signum, frame):
log.warning('Caught signal %d, shutting down gracefully ...' % signum)
# Put an item in the shutting down queue to signal shutdown.
shutting_down.put(None)
# Register the signal handler
signal.signal(signal.SIGTERM, shutdown)
signal.signal(signal.SIGINT, shutdown)
def is_shutting_down():
return not shutting_down.empty()
futures = dict()
buffer = BufferedIter(input_stream)
with ThreadPoolExecutor(num_workers) as executor:
num_success = 0
num_failure = 0
while True:
idle_workers = num_workers - len(futures)
if not is_shutting_down():
items = buffer.nextN(idle_workers)
for data in items:
futures[executor.submit(task, data)] = data
done, _ = wait(futures, timeout=WAIT_SLEEP, return_when=ALL_COMPLETED)
for f in done:
data = futures[f]
try:
f.result(timeout=0)
except Exception as exc:
log.error('future encountered an exception: %r, %s' % (data, exc))
num_failure += 1
else:
log.info('future finished successfully: %r' % data)
num_success += 1
del futures[f]
if is_shutting_down() and len(futures) == 0:
break
log.info("num_success=%d, num_failure=%d" % (num_success, num_failure))
Below we show an example for how to use the stream processor
import itertools
def integers():
"""Simulate an infinite stream of work."""
for i in itertools.count():
yield i
def task(x):
"""The task we would like to perform in parallel.
With some delay to simulate a time consuming job.
With a baked in exception to simulate errors.
"""
time.sleep(3)
if x == 4:
raise ValueError('bad luck')
return x * x
stream_processor(integers(), task, num_workers=3)
The output for this example is shown below
2019-01-15 22:34:40,193 future finished successfully: 1
2019-01-15 22:34:40,193 future finished successfully: 0
2019-01-15 22:34:40,193 future finished successfully: 2
2019-01-15 22:34:43,201 future finished successfully: 5
2019-01-15 22:34:43,201 future encountered an exception: 4, bad luck
2019-01-15 22:34:43,202 future finished successfully: 3
2019-01-15 22:34:46,208 future finished successfully: 6
2019-01-15 22:34:46,209 future finished successfully: 7
2019-01-15 22:34:46,209 future finished successfully: 8
2019-01-15 22:34:49,215 future finished successfully: 11
2019-01-15 22:34:49,215 future finished successfully: 10
2019-01-15 22:34:49,215 future finished successfully: 9
^C <=== THIS IS WHEN I HIT Ctrl-C
2019-01-15 22:34:50,648 Caught signal 2, shutting down gracefully ...
2019-01-15 22:34:52,221 future finished successfully: 13
2019-01-15 22:34:52,222 future finished successfully: 14
2019-01-15 22:34:52,222 future finished successfully: 12
2019-01-15 22:34:52,222 num_success=14, num_failure=1
I really liked the interesting approach by @pedro above. However, when processing thousands of files, I noticed that at the end a StopIteration would be thrown and some files would always be skipped. I had to make a little modification to as follows. Very useful answer again.
class BufferedIter(object):
def __init__(self, iterator):
self.iter = iterator
def nextN(self, n):
vals = []
try:
for _ in range(n):
vals.append(next(self.iter))
return vals, False
except StopIteration as e:
return vals, True
— Call as follows
...
if not is_shutting_down():
items, is_finished = buffer.nextN(idle_workers)
if is_finished:
stop()
...
— Where stop is a function that simply tells to shutdown
def stop():
shutting_down.put(None)
It is possible to gain the benefits of the executor without strictly having to use a Queue. New tasks are submitted from the main thread. The undone futures are tracked and waited on until all futures are done.
import concurrent.futures
import sys
import time
sys.setrecursionlimit(64) # This is only for demonstration purposes to trigger a RecursionError. Do not set in practice.
def slow_factorial(n: int) -> int:
time.sleep(0.01)
if n == 0:
return 1
else:
return n * slow_factorial(n-1)
initial_inputs = [0, 1, 5, 20, 200, 100, 50, 51, 55, 40, 44, 21, 222, 333, 202, 1000, 10, 9000, 9009, 99, 9999]
for executor_class in (concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor, concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor):
for max_workers in (4, 8, 16, 32):
start_time = time.monotonic()
with executor_class(max_workers=max_workers) as executor:
futures_to_n = {executor.submit(slow_factorial, n): n for n in initial_inputs}
while futures_to_n:
futures_done, futures_not_done = concurrent.futures.wait(futures_to_n, return_when=concurrent.futures.FIRST_COMPLETED)
# Note: Length of futures_done is often > 1.
for future in futures_done:
n = futures_to_n.pop(future)
try:
factorial_n = future.result()
except RecursionError:
n_smaller = int(n ** 0.9)
future = executor.submit(slow_factorial, n_smaller)
futures_to_n[future] = n_smaller
# print(f'Failed to compute factorial of {n}. Trying to compute factorial of a smaller number {n_smaller} instead.')
else:
# print(f'Factorial of {n} is {factorial_n}.')
pass
used_time = time.monotonic() - start_time
executor_type = executor_class.__name__.removesuffix('PoolExecutor').lower()
print(f'Workflow took {used_time:.1f}s with {max_workers} {executor_type} workers.')
print()
Output:
Workflow took 9.4s with 4 thread workers.
Workflow took 6.3s with 8 thread workers.
Workflow took 5.4s with 16 thread workers.
Workflow took 5.2s with 32 thread workers.
Workflow took 9.0s with 4 process workers.
Workflow took 5.9s with 8 process workers.
Workflow took 5.1s with 16 process workers.
Workflow took 4.9s with 32 process workers.
For more clarity, uncomment the two print statements. As per the output above, there is an asymptotic speed benefit with more workers.
It is fairly easy to do parallel work with Python 3’s concurrent.futures module as shown below.
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=10) as executor:
future_to = {executor.submit(do_work, input, 60): input for input in dictionary}
for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(future_to):
data = future.result()
It is also very handy to insert and retrieve items into a Queue.
q = queue.Queue()
for task in tasks:
q.put(task)
while not q.empty():
q.get()
I have a script running in background listening for updates. Now, in theory assume that, as those updates arrive, I would queue them and do work on them concurrently using the ThreadPoolExecutor.
Now, individually, all of these components work in isolation, and make sense, but how do I go about using them together? I am not aware if it is possible to feed the ThreadPoolExecutor work from the queue in real time unless the data to work from is predetermined?
In a nutshell, all I want to do is, receive updates of say 4 messages a second, shove them in a queue, and get my concurrent.futures to work on them. If I don’t, then I am stuck with a sequential approach which is slow.
Let’s take the canonical example in the Python documentation below:
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=5) as executor:
future_to_url = {executor.submit(load_url, url, 60): url for url in URLS}
for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(future_to_url):
url = future_to_url[future]
try:
data = future.result()
except Exception as exc:
print('%r generated an exception: %s' % (url, exc))
else:
print('%r page is %d bytes' % (url, len(data)))
The list of URLS is fixed. Is it possible to feed this list in real-time and get the worker to process it as they come by, perhaps from a queue for management purposes? I am a bit confused on whether my approach is actually possible?
The example from the Python docs, expanded to take its work from a queue. A change to note, is that this code uses concurrent.futures.wait instead of concurrent.futures.as_completed to allow new work to be started while waiting for other work to complete.
import concurrent.futures
import urllib.request
import time
import queue
q = queue.Queue()
URLS = ['http://www.foxnews.com/',
'http://www.cnn.com/',
'http://europe.wsj.com/',
'http://www.bbc.co.uk/',
'http://some-made-up-domain.com/']
def feed_the_workers(spacing):
""" Simulate outside actors sending in work to do, request each url twice """
for url in URLS + URLS:
time.sleep(spacing)
q.put(url)
return "DONE FEEDING"
def load_url(url, timeout):
""" Retrieve a single page and report the URL and contents """
with urllib.request.urlopen(url, timeout=timeout) as conn:
return conn.read()
# We can use a with statement to ensure threads are cleaned up promptly
with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=5) as executor:
# start a future for a thread which sends work in through the queue
future_to_url = {
executor.submit(feed_the_workers, 0.25): 'FEEDER DONE'}
while future_to_url:
# check for status of the futures which are currently working
done, not_done = concurrent.futures.wait(
future_to_url, timeout=0.25,
return_when=concurrent.futures.FIRST_COMPLETED)
# if there is incoming work, start a new future
while not q.empty():
# fetch a url from the queue
url = q.get()
# Start the load operation and mark the future with its URL
future_to_url[executor.submit(load_url, url, 60)] = url
# process any completed futures
for future in done:
url = future_to_url[future]
try:
data = future.result()
except Exception as exc:
print('%r generated an exception: %s' % (url, exc))
else:
if url == 'FEEDER DONE':
print(data)
else:
print('%r page is %d bytes' % (url, len(data)))
# remove the now completed future
del future_to_url[future]
Output from fetching each url twice:
'http://www.foxnews.com/' page is 67574 bytes
'http://www.cnn.com/' page is 136975 bytes
'http://www.bbc.co.uk/' page is 193780 bytes
'http://some-made-up-domain.com/' page is 896 bytes
'http://www.foxnews.com/' page is 67574 bytes
'http://www.cnn.com/' page is 136975 bytes
DONE FEEDING
'http://www.bbc.co.uk/' page is 193605 bytes
'http://some-made-up-domain.com/' page is 896 bytes
'http://europe.wsj.com/' page is 874649 bytes
'http://europe.wsj.com/' page is 874649 bytes
At work I found a situation where I wanted to do parallel work on an unbounded stream of data. I created a small library inspired by the excellent answer already provided by Stephen Rauch.
I originally approached this problem by thinking about two separate threads, one that submits work to a queue and one that monitors the queue for any completed tasks and makes more room for new work to come in. This is similar to what Stephen Rauch proposed, where he consumes the stream using a feed_the_workers function that runs in a separate thread.
Talking to one of my colleagues, he helped me realize that you can get away with doing everything in a single thread if you define a buffered iterator that allows you to control how many elements are let out of the input stream every time you are ready to submit more work to the thread pool.
So we introduce the BufferedIter class
class BufferedIter(object):
def __init__(self, iterator):
self.iter = iterator
def nextN(self, n):
vals = []
for _ in range(n):
vals.append(next(self.iter))
return vals
which allows us to define the stream processor in the following way
import logging
import queue
import signal
import sys
import time
from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor, wait, ALL_COMPLETED
level = logging.DEBUG
log = logging.getLogger(__name__)
handler = logging.StreamHandler(sys.stdout)
handler.setFormatter(logging.Formatter('%(asctime)s %(message)s'))
handler.setLevel(level)
log.addHandler(handler)
log.setLevel(level)
WAIT_SLEEP = 1 # second, adjust this based on the timescale of your tasks
def stream_processor(input_stream, task, num_workers):
# Use a queue to signal shutdown.
shutting_down = queue.Queue()
def shutdown(signum, frame):
log.warning('Caught signal %d, shutting down gracefully ...' % signum)
# Put an item in the shutting down queue to signal shutdown.
shutting_down.put(None)
# Register the signal handler
signal.signal(signal.SIGTERM, shutdown)
signal.signal(signal.SIGINT, shutdown)
def is_shutting_down():
return not shutting_down.empty()
futures = dict()
buffer = BufferedIter(input_stream)
with ThreadPoolExecutor(num_workers) as executor:
num_success = 0
num_failure = 0
while True:
idle_workers = num_workers - len(futures)
if not is_shutting_down():
items = buffer.nextN(idle_workers)
for data in items:
futures[executor.submit(task, data)] = data
done, _ = wait(futures, timeout=WAIT_SLEEP, return_when=ALL_COMPLETED)
for f in done:
data = futures[f]
try:
f.result(timeout=0)
except Exception as exc:
log.error('future encountered an exception: %r, %s' % (data, exc))
num_failure += 1
else:
log.info('future finished successfully: %r' % data)
num_success += 1
del futures[f]
if is_shutting_down() and len(futures) == 0:
break
log.info("num_success=%d, num_failure=%d" % (num_success, num_failure))
Below we show an example for how to use the stream processor
import itertools
def integers():
"""Simulate an infinite stream of work."""
for i in itertools.count():
yield i
def task(x):
"""The task we would like to perform in parallel.
With some delay to simulate a time consuming job.
With a baked in exception to simulate errors.
"""
time.sleep(3)
if x == 4:
raise ValueError('bad luck')
return x * x
stream_processor(integers(), task, num_workers=3)
The output for this example is shown below
2019-01-15 22:34:40,193 future finished successfully: 1
2019-01-15 22:34:40,193 future finished successfully: 0
2019-01-15 22:34:40,193 future finished successfully: 2
2019-01-15 22:34:43,201 future finished successfully: 5
2019-01-15 22:34:43,201 future encountered an exception: 4, bad luck
2019-01-15 22:34:43,202 future finished successfully: 3
2019-01-15 22:34:46,208 future finished successfully: 6
2019-01-15 22:34:46,209 future finished successfully: 7
2019-01-15 22:34:46,209 future finished successfully: 8
2019-01-15 22:34:49,215 future finished successfully: 11
2019-01-15 22:34:49,215 future finished successfully: 10
2019-01-15 22:34:49,215 future finished successfully: 9
^C <=== THIS IS WHEN I HIT Ctrl-C
2019-01-15 22:34:50,648 Caught signal 2, shutting down gracefully ...
2019-01-15 22:34:52,221 future finished successfully: 13
2019-01-15 22:34:52,222 future finished successfully: 14
2019-01-15 22:34:52,222 future finished successfully: 12
2019-01-15 22:34:52,222 num_success=14, num_failure=1
I really liked the interesting approach by @pedro above. However, when processing thousands of files, I noticed that at the end a StopIteration would be thrown and some files would always be skipped. I had to make a little modification to as follows. Very useful answer again.
class BufferedIter(object):
def __init__(self, iterator):
self.iter = iterator
def nextN(self, n):
vals = []
try:
for _ in range(n):
vals.append(next(self.iter))
return vals, False
except StopIteration as e:
return vals, True
— Call as follows
...
if not is_shutting_down():
items, is_finished = buffer.nextN(idle_workers)
if is_finished:
stop()
...
— Where stop is a function that simply tells to shutdown
def stop():
shutting_down.put(None)
It is possible to gain the benefits of the executor without strictly having to use a Queue. New tasks are submitted from the main thread. The undone futures are tracked and waited on until all futures are done.
import concurrent.futures
import sys
import time
sys.setrecursionlimit(64) # This is only for demonstration purposes to trigger a RecursionError. Do not set in practice.
def slow_factorial(n: int) -> int:
time.sleep(0.01)
if n == 0:
return 1
else:
return n * slow_factorial(n-1)
initial_inputs = [0, 1, 5, 20, 200, 100, 50, 51, 55, 40, 44, 21, 222, 333, 202, 1000, 10, 9000, 9009, 99, 9999]
for executor_class in (concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor, concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor):
for max_workers in (4, 8, 16, 32):
start_time = time.monotonic()
with executor_class(max_workers=max_workers) as executor:
futures_to_n = {executor.submit(slow_factorial, n): n for n in initial_inputs}
while futures_to_n:
futures_done, futures_not_done = concurrent.futures.wait(futures_to_n, return_when=concurrent.futures.FIRST_COMPLETED)
# Note: Length of futures_done is often > 1.
for future in futures_done:
n = futures_to_n.pop(future)
try:
factorial_n = future.result()
except RecursionError:
n_smaller = int(n ** 0.9)
future = executor.submit(slow_factorial, n_smaller)
futures_to_n[future] = n_smaller
# print(f'Failed to compute factorial of {n}. Trying to compute factorial of a smaller number {n_smaller} instead.')
else:
# print(f'Factorial of {n} is {factorial_n}.')
pass
used_time = time.monotonic() - start_time
executor_type = executor_class.__name__.removesuffix('PoolExecutor').lower()
print(f'Workflow took {used_time:.1f}s with {max_workers} {executor_type} workers.')
print()
Output:
Workflow took 9.4s with 4 thread workers.
Workflow took 6.3s with 8 thread workers.
Workflow took 5.4s with 16 thread workers.
Workflow took 5.2s with 32 thread workers.
Workflow took 9.0s with 4 process workers.
Workflow took 5.9s with 8 process workers.
Workflow took 5.1s with 16 process workers.
Workflow took 4.9s with 32 process workers.
For more clarity, uncomment the two print statements. As per the output above, there is an asymptotic speed benefit with more workers.