You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
executor.map hangs at seemly random iteration when iterable is large #114948
Win10, main, Command Prompt, with range: I get multiple duplicate tracebacks.
File "C:\Programs\Python313\Lib\multiprocessing\spawn.py", line 164, in get_preparation_data
_check_not_importing_main()
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^
File "C:\Programs\Python313\Lib\multiprocessing\spawn.py", line 140, in _check_not_importing_main
raise RuntimeError('''
...<16 lines>...
''')
File "C:\Programs\Python313\Lib\multiprocessing\spawn.py", line 140, in _check_not_importing_main
raise RuntimeError('''
...<16 lines>...
''')
RuntimeError:
An attempt has been made to start a new process before the
current process has finished its bootstrapping phase.
This probably means that you are not using fork to start your
child processes and you have forgotten to use the proper idiom
in the main module:
if __name__ == '__main__':
...
With the needed (on Windows) clause added, it prints 0 to 12 on separate lines and hangs. ^C and I get 12 interlaced tracebacks with some of the following lines
File "C:\Programs\Python313\Lib\multiprocessing\process.py", line 314, in _bootstrap
self.run()
File "C:\Programs\Python313\Lib\multiprocessing\process.py", line 108, in run
self._target(*self._args, **self._kwargs)
File "C:\Programs\Python313\Lib\concurrent\futures\process.py", line 251, in _process_worker
call_item = call_queue.get(block=True)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "C:\Programs\Python313\Lib\multiprocessing\queues.py", line 102, in get
with self._rlock:
res = self._recv_bytes()
File "C:\Programs\Python313\Lib\multiprocessing\queues.py", line 103, in get
res = self._recv_bytes()
File "C:\Programs\Python313\Lib\multiprocessing\synchronize.py", line 95, in __enter__
return self._semlock.__enter__()
KeyboardInterrupt
This does not hang infinitely, it just takes a long time. (~1min on my comupter).
This is the main process timeline for a "normal" map operation, where the input is range(100).
The MainThread is doing the map, which submit the work item one by one to a dict. In each submit, two thing happen:
a wakeup signal is sent to self.thread_wakeup queue
a WorkItem's id is added to self._work_ids queue
During the first call of submit, an executor manager thread is brought up (Thread-1 in the graph), which is in charge of actually distributing the tasks.
It will get the WorkItems from self._work_ids and put them in a process queue that has a size of MAX_WORKERS + 1 for the process workers. Because the queue has a maximum size, the manager thread will not be able to put all the tasks in it.
When the task queue is full, the manager waits for a broken or wakeup signal in wait_result_broken_or_wakeup, and this is where the issue happened.
In this function, it needs to read all the pending wakeup signals in self.thread_wakeup queue mentioned above. Remember, the submit will not be blocked, it's not lazily evaluated, so each task sends a wakeup signal. This function needs to process ALL of them to be able to send more WorkItems to the worker process.
Each poll & recv takes about 50 us on my computer:
So if you have 1e6 tasks like in the example, you'll need 50s to process all the wake up signals before you can send out more WorkItems to the process workers.
So it's not a real dead lock, it just takes a long time. However, I do agree that if we can do something about it, that would be nice. But it won't make this go any faster even with lazy evaluation - it will make this smoother, as each wakeup signal always need to take 50us and it needs to be processed anyway (but it can be parallelized so if the task itself takes more than that, it should be ignorable if it's not blocking the task distribution).
Activity
gaogaotiantian commentedon Feb 3, 2024
Is this reproducible without
numpy?np.arangeis simple enough but it would be nice to rule out all the possible externel dependencies in the example.tburke02 commentedon Feb 3, 2024
Yes, same behavior when using
range.terryjreedy commentedon Feb 3, 2024
Win10, main, Command Prompt, with
range: I get multiple duplicate tracebacks.With the needed (on Windows) clause added, it prints 0 to 12 on separate lines and hangs. ^C and I get 12 interlaced tracebacks with some of the following lines
Jason-Y-Z commentedon Feb 3, 2024
Thanks all for the discussion and feedback. I've started a PR which should hopefully address/help with this and a couple of related issues.
gaogaotiantian commentedon Feb 3, 2024
This does not hang infinitely, it just takes a long time. (~1min on my comupter).
This is the main process timeline for a "normal"
mapoperation, where the input isrange(100).The MainThread is doing the
map, whichsubmitthe work item one by one to a dict. In eachsubmit, two thing happen:wakeupsignal is sent toself.thread_wakeupqueueWorkItem's id is added toself._work_idsqueueDuring the first call of
submit, an executor manager thread is brought up (Thread-1in the graph), which is in charge of actually distributing the tasks.It will get the
WorkItems fromself._work_idsandputthem in a process queue that has a size ofMAX_WORKERS + 1for the process workers. Because the queue has a maximum size, the manager thread will not be able to put all the tasks in it.When the task queue is full, the manager waits for a broken or wakeup signal in
wait_result_broken_or_wakeup, and this is where the issue happened.In this function, it needs to read all the pending
wakeupsignals inself.thread_wakeupqueue mentioned above. Remember, thesubmitwill not be blocked, it's not lazily evaluated, so each task sends a wakeup signal. This function needs to process ALL of them to be able to send moreWorkItemsto the worker process.Each
poll&recvtakes about 50 us on my computer:So if you have 1e6 tasks like in the example, you'll need 50s to process all the wake up signals before you can send out more
WorkItems to the process workers.So it's not a real dead lock, it just takes a long time. However, I do agree that if we can do something about it, that would be nice. But it won't make this go any faster even with lazy evaluation - it will make this smoother, as each wakeup signal always need to take 50us and it needs to be processed anyway (but it can be parallelized so if the task itself takes more than that, it should be ignorable if it's not blocking the task distribution).
Jason-Y-Z commentedon Feb 6, 2024
@gaogaotiantian Thanks for the profiling, please see #114975 for an attempt to improve the large iterator use case
gaogaotiantian commentedon Feb 7, 2024
Ah okay this is a false alarm. What you should do is to specify a
chunksizeto batchify you data.The docs says:
should just solve the issue.