Python threads all executing on a single core
Question:
I have a Python program that spawns many threads, runs 4 at a time, and each performs an expensive operation. Pseudocode:
for object in list:
t = Thread(target=process, args=(object))
# if fewer than 4 threads are currently running, t.start(). Otherwise, add t to queue
But when the program is run, Activity Monitor in OS X shows that 1 of the 4 logical cores is at 100% and the others are at nearly 0. Obviously I can’t force the OS to do anything but I’ve never had to pay attention to performance in multi-threaded code like this before so I was wondering if I’m just missing or misunderstanding something.
Thanks.
Answers:
Python has a Global Interpreter Lock, which can prevent threads of interpreted code from being processed concurrently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Interpreter_Lock
http://wiki.python.org/moin/GlobalInterpreterLock
For ways to get around this, try the multiprocessing module, as advised here:
AFAIK, in CPython the Global Interpreter Lock means that there can’t be more than one block of Python code being run at any one time. Although this does not really affect anything in a single processor/single-core machine, on a mulitcore machine it means you have effectively only one thread running at any one time – causing all the other core to be idle.
Note that in many cases (and virtually all cases where your "expensive operation" is a calculation implemented in Python), multiple threads will not actually run concurrently due to Python’s Global Interpreter Lock (GIL).
The GIL is an interpreter-level lock.
This lock prevents execution of
multiple threads at once in the Python
interpreter. Each thread that wants to
run must wait for the GIL to be
released by the other thread, which
means your multi-threaded Python
application is essentially single
threaded, right? Yes. Not exactly.
Sort of.
CPython uses what’s called “operating
system” threads under the covers,
which is to say each time a request to
make a new thread is made, the
interpreter actually calls into the
operating system’s libraries and
kernel to generate a new thread. This
is the same as Java, for example. So
in memory you really do have multiple
threads and normally the operating
system controls which thread is
scheduled to run. On a multiple
processor machine, this means you
could have many threads spread across
multiple processors, all happily
chugging away doing work.
However, while CPython does use
operating system threads (in theory
allowing multiple threads to execute
within the interpreter
simultaneously), the interpreter also
forces the GIL to be acquired by a
thread before it can access the
interpreter and stack and can modify
Python objects in memory all
willy-nilly. The latter point is why
the GIL exists: The GIL prevents
simultaneous access to Python objects
by multiple threads. But this does not
save you (as illustrated by the Bank
example) from being a lock-sensitive
creature; you don’t get a free ride.
The GIL is there to protect the
interpreters memory, not your sanity.
See the Global Interpreter Lock section of Jesse Noller’s post for more details.
To get around this problem, check out Python’s multiprocessing module.
multiple processes (with judicious use
of IPC) are[…] a much better
approach to writing apps for multi-CPU
boxes than threads.
— Guido van Rossum (creator of Python)
Edit based on a comment from @spinkus:
If Python can’t run multiple threads simultaneously, then why have threading at all?
Threads can still be very useful in Python when doing simultaneous operations that do not need to modify the interpreter’s state. This includes many (most?) long-running function calls that are not in-Python calculations, such as I/O (file access or network requests)) and [calculations on Numpy arrays][6]. These operations release the GIL while waiting for a result, allowing the program to continue executing. Then, once the result is received, the thread must re-acquire the GIL in order to use that result in "Python-land"
I have a Python program that spawns many threads, runs 4 at a time, and each performs an expensive operation. Pseudocode:
for object in list:
t = Thread(target=process, args=(object))
# if fewer than 4 threads are currently running, t.start(). Otherwise, add t to queue
But when the program is run, Activity Monitor in OS X shows that 1 of the 4 logical cores is at 100% and the others are at nearly 0. Obviously I can’t force the OS to do anything but I’ve never had to pay attention to performance in multi-threaded code like this before so I was wondering if I’m just missing or misunderstanding something.
Thanks.
Python has a Global Interpreter Lock, which can prevent threads of interpreted code from being processed concurrently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Interpreter_Lock
http://wiki.python.org/moin/GlobalInterpreterLock
For ways to get around this, try the multiprocessing module, as advised here:
AFAIK, in CPython the Global Interpreter Lock means that there can’t be more than one block of Python code being run at any one time. Although this does not really affect anything in a single processor/single-core machine, on a mulitcore machine it means you have effectively only one thread running at any one time – causing all the other core to be idle.
Note that in many cases (and virtually all cases where your "expensive operation" is a calculation implemented in Python), multiple threads will not actually run concurrently due to Python’s Global Interpreter Lock (GIL).
The GIL is an interpreter-level lock.
This lock prevents execution of
multiple threads at once in the Python
interpreter. Each thread that wants to
run must wait for the GIL to be
released by the other thread, which
means your multi-threaded Python
application is essentially single
threaded, right? Yes. Not exactly.
Sort of.CPython uses what’s called “operating
system” threads under the covers,
which is to say each time a request to
make a new thread is made, the
interpreter actually calls into the
operating system’s libraries and
kernel to generate a new thread. This
is the same as Java, for example. So
in memory you really do have multiple
threads and normally the operating
system controls which thread is
scheduled to run. On a multiple
processor machine, this means you
could have many threads spread across
multiple processors, all happily
chugging away doing work.However, while CPython does use
operating system threads (in theory
allowing multiple threads to execute
within the interpreter
simultaneously), the interpreter also
forces the GIL to be acquired by a
thread before it can access the
interpreter and stack and can modify
Python objects in memory all
willy-nilly. The latter point is why
the GIL exists: The GIL prevents
simultaneous access to Python objects
by multiple threads. But this does not
save you (as illustrated by the Bank
example) from being a lock-sensitive
creature; you don’t get a free ride.
The GIL is there to protect the
interpreters memory, not your sanity.
See the Global Interpreter Lock section of Jesse Noller’s post for more details.
To get around this problem, check out Python’s multiprocessing module.
multiple processes (with judicious use
of IPC) are[…] a much better
approach to writing apps for multi-CPU
boxes than threads.
— Guido van Rossum (creator of Python)
Edit based on a comment from @spinkus:
If Python can’t run multiple threads simultaneously, then why have threading at all?
Threads can still be very useful in Python when doing simultaneous operations that do not need to modify the interpreter’s state. This includes many (most?) long-running function calls that are not in-Python calculations, such as I/O (file access or network requests)) and [calculations on Numpy arrays][6]. These operations release the GIL while waiting for a result, allowing the program to continue executing. Then, once the result is received, the thread must re-acquire the GIL in order to use that result in "Python-land"