Parallelism in Python

Question

What are the options for achieving parallelism in Python? I want to perform a bunch of CPU bound calculations over some very large rasters, and would like to parallelise th

Answer 1

The new (2.6) multiprocessing module is the way to go. It uses subprocesses, which gets around the GIL problem. It also abstracts away some of the local/remote issues, so the choice of running your code locally or spread out over a cluster can be made later. The documentation I've linked above is a fair bit to chew on, but should provide a good basis to get started.

Answer 2

Generally, you describe a CPU bound calculation. This is not Python's forte. Neither, historically, is multiprocessing.

Threading in the mainstream Python interpreter has been ruled by a dreaded global lock. The new multiprocessing API works around that and gives a worker pool abstraction with pipes and queues and such.

You can write your performance critical code in C or Cython, and use Python for the glue.

Answer 3

Depending on how much data you need to process and how many CPUs/machines you intend to use, it is in some cases better to write a part of it in C (or Java/C# if you want to use jython/IronPython)

The speedup you can get from that might do more for your performance than running things in parallel on 8 CPUs.

Answer 4

Ray is an elegant (and fast) library for doing this.

The most basic strategy for parallelizing Python functions is to declare a function with the @ray.remote decorator. Then it can be invoked asynchronously.

import ray
import time

# Start the Ray processes (e.g., a scheduler and shared-memory object store).
ray.init(num_cpus=8)

@ray.remote
def f():
    time.sleep(1)

# This should take one second assuming you have at least 4 cores.
ray.get([f.remote() for _ in range(4)])

You can also parallelize stateful computation using actors, again by using the @ray.remote decorator.

# This assumes you already ran 'import ray' and 'ray.init()'.

import time

@ray.remote
class Counter(object):
    def __init__(self):
        self.x = 0

    def inc(self):
        self.x += 1

    def get_counter(self):
        return self.x

# Create two actors which will operate in parallel.
counter1 = Counter.remote()
counter2 = Counter.remote()

@ray.remote
def update_counters(counter1, counter2):
    for _ in range(1000):
        time.sleep(0.25)
        counter1.inc.remote()
        counter2.inc.remote()

# Start three tasks that update the counters in the background also in parallel.
update_counters.remote(counter1, counter2)
update_counters.remote(counter1, counter2)
update_counters.remote(counter1, counter2)

# Check the counter values.
for _ in range(5):
    counter1_val = ray.get(counter1.get_counter.remote())
    counter2_val = ray.get(counter2.get_counter.remote())
    print("Counter1: {}, Counter2: {}".format(counter1_val, counter2_val))
    time.sleep(1)

It has a number of advantages over the multiprocessing module:

• The same code runs on a single multi-core machine as well as a large cluster.
• Data is shared efficiently between processes on the same machine using shared memory and efficient serialization.
• You can parallelize Python functions (using tasks) and Python classes (using actors).
• Error messages are propagated nicely.

Ray is a framework I've been helping develop.

Answer 5

There are many packages to do that, the most appropriate as other said is multiprocessing, expecially with the class "Pool".

A similar result can be obtained by parallel python, that in addition is designed to work with clusters.

Anyway, I would say go with multiprocessing.