I am trying to understand threading in Python. I’ve looked at the documentation and examples, but quite frankly, many examples are overly sophisticated and I’m having trouble understanding them.

How do you clearly show tasks being divided for multi-threading?

Since this question was asked in 2010, there has been real simplification in how to do simple multithreading with Python with map and pool.

The code below comes from an article/blog post that you should definitely check out (no affiliation) – Parallelism in one line: A Better Model for Day to Day Threading Tasks. I’ll summarize below – it ends up being just a few lines of code:

from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool as ThreadPool
pool = ThreadPool(4)
results = pool.map(my_function, my_array)

Which is the multithreaded version of:

results = []
for item in my_array:
    results.append(my_function(item))

Description

Map is a cool little function, and the key to easily injecting parallelism into your Python code. For those unfamiliar, map is something lifted from functional languages like Lisp. It is a function which maps another function over a sequence.

Map handles the iteration over the sequence for us, applies the function, and stores all of the results in a handy list at the end.

Implementation

Parallel versions of the map function are provided by two libraries:multiprocessing, and also its little known, but equally fantastic step child:multiprocessing.dummy.

multiprocessing.dummy is exactly the same as multiprocessing module, but uses threads instead (an important distinction – use multiple processes for CPU-intensive tasks; threads for (and during) I/O):

multiprocessing.dummy replicates the API of multiprocessing, but is no more than a wrapper around the threading module.

import urllib2
from multiprocessing.dummy import Pool as ThreadPool

urls = [
  'http://www.python.org',
  'http://www.python.org/about/',
  'http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/python/2003/04/17/metaclasses.html',
  'http://www.python.org/doc/',
  'http://www.python.org/download/',
  'http://www.python.org/getit/',
  'http://www.python.org/community/',
  'https://wiki.python.org/moin/',
]

# Make the Pool of workers
pool = ThreadPool(4)

# Open the URLs in their own threads
# and return the results
results = pool.map(urllib2.urlopen, urls)

# Close the pool and wait for the work to finish
pool.close()
pool.join()

And the timing results:

Single thread:   14.4 seconds
       4 Pool:   3.1 seconds
       8 Pool:   1.4 seconds
      13 Pool:   1.3 seconds

Passing multiple arguments (works like this only in Python 3.3 and later):

To pass multiple arrays:

results = pool.starmap(function, zip(list_a, list_b))

Or to pass a constant and an array:

results = pool.starmap(function, zip(itertools.repeat(constant), list_a))

If you are using an earlier version of Python, you can pass multiple arguments via this workaround).

(Thanks to user136036 for the helpful comment.)

Here’s a simple example: you need to try a few alternative URLs and return the contents of the first one to respond.

import Queue
import threading
import urllib2

# Called by each thread
def get_url(q, url):
    q.put(urllib2.urlopen(url).read())

theurls = ["http://google.com", "http://yahoo.com"]

q = Queue.Queue()

for u in theurls:
    t = threading.Thread(target=get_url, args = (q,u))
    t.daemon = True
    t.start()

s = q.get()
print s

This is a case where threading is used as a simple optimization: each subthread is waiting for a URL to resolve and respond, in order to put its contents on the queue; each thread is a daemon (won’t keep the process up if main thread ends — that’s more common than not); the main thread starts all subthreads, does a get on the queue to wait until one of them has done a put, then emits the results and terminates (which takes down any subthreads that might still be running, since they’re daemon threads).

Proper use of threads in Python is invariably connected to I/O operations (since CPython doesn’t use multiple cores to run CPU-bound tasks anyway, the only reason for threading is not blocking the process while there’s a wait for some I/O). Queues are almost invariably the best way to farm out work to threads and/or collect the work’s results, by the way, and they’re intrinsically threadsafe, so they save you from worrying about locks, conditions, events, semaphores, and other inter-thread coordination/communication concepts.

NOTE: For actual parallelization in Python, you should use the multiprocessing module to fork multiple processes that execute in parallel (due to the global interpreter lock, Python threads provide interleaving, but they are in fact executed serially, not in parallel, and are only useful when interleaving I/O operations).

However, if you are merely looking for interleaving (or are doing I/O operations that can be parallelized despite the global interpreter lock), then the threading module is the place to start. As a really simple example, let’s consider the problem of summing a large range by summing subranges in parallel:

import threading

class SummingThread(threading.Thread):
     def __init__(self,low,high):
         super(SummingThread, self).__init__()
         self.low=low
         self.high=high
         self.total=0

     def run(self):
         for i in range(self.low,self.high):
             self.total+=i


thread1 = SummingThread(0,500000)
thread2 = SummingThread(500000,1000000)
thread1.start() # This actually causes the thread to run
thread2.start()
thread1.join()  # This waits until the thread has completed
thread2.join()
# At this point, both threads have completed
result = thread1.total + thread2.total
print result

Note that the above is a very stupid example, as it does absolutely no I/O and will be executed serially albeit interleaved (with the added overhead of context switching) in CPython due to the global interpreter lock.

Like others mentioned, CPython can use threads only for I/O waits due to GIL.

If you want to benefit from multiple cores for CPU-bound tasks, use multiprocessing:

from multiprocessing import Process

def f(name):
    print 'hello', name

if __name__ == '__main__':
    p = Process(target=f, args=('bob',))
    p.start()
    p.join()

Just a note: A queue is not required for threading.

This is the simplest example I could imagine that shows 10 processes running concurrently.

import threading
from random import randint
from time import sleep


def print_number(number):

    # Sleeps a random 1 to 10 seconds
    rand_int_var = randint(1, 10)
    sleep(rand_int_var)
    print "Thread " + str(number) + " slept for " + str(rand_int_var) + " seconds"

thread_list = []

for i in range(1, 10):

    # Instantiates the thread
    # (i) does not make a sequence, so (i,)
    t = threading.Thread(target=print_number, args=(i,))
    # Sticks the thread in a list so that it remains accessible
    thread_list.append(t)

# Starts threads
for thread in thread_list:
    thread.start()

# This blocks the calling thread until the thread whose join() method is called is terminated.
# From http://docs.python.org/2/library/threading.html#thread-objects
for thread in thread_list:
    thread.join()

# Demonstrates that the main process waited for threads to complete
print "Done"

The answer from Alex Martelli helped me. However, here is a modified version that I thought was more useful (at least to me).

Updated: works in both Python 2 and Python 3

try:
    # For Python 3
    import queue
    from urllib.request import urlopen
except:
    # For Python 2 
    import Queue as queue
    from urllib2 import urlopen

import threading

worker_data = ['http://google.com', 'http://yahoo.com', 'http://bing.com']

# Load up a queue with your data. This will handle locking
q = queue.Queue()
for url in worker_data:
    q.put(url)

# Define a worker function
def worker(url_queue):
    queue_full = True
    while queue_full:
        try:
            # Get your data off the queue, and do some work
            url = url_queue.get(False)
            data = urlopen(url).read()
            print(len(data))

        except queue.Empty:
            queue_full = False

# Create as many threads as you want
thread_count = 5
for i in range(thread_count):
    t = threading.Thread(target=worker, args = (q,))
    t.start()

Given a function, f, thread it like this:

import threading
threading.Thread(target=f).start()

To pass arguments to f

threading.Thread(target=f, args=(a,b,c)).start()

I found this very useful: create as many threads as cores and let them execute a (large) number of tasks (in this case, calling a shell program):

import Queue
import threading
import multiprocessing
import subprocess

q = Queue.Queue()
for i in range(30): # Put 30 tasks in the queue
    q.put(i)

def worker():
    while True:
        item = q.get()
        # Execute a task: call a shell program and wait until it completes
        subprocess.call("echo " + str(item), shell=True)
        q.task_done()

cpus = multiprocessing.cpu_count() # Detect number of cores
print("Creating %d threads" % cpus)
for i in range(cpus):
     t = threading.Thread(target=worker)
     t.daemon = True
     t.start()

q.join() # Block until all tasks are done

Python 3 has the facility of launching parallel tasks. This makes our work easier.

It has thread pooling and process pooling.

The following gives an insight:

ThreadPoolExecutor Example (source)

import concurrent.futures
import urllib.request

URLS = ['http://www.foxnews.com/',
        'http://www.cnn.com/',
        'http://europe.wsj.com/',
        'http://www.bbc.co.uk/',
        'http://some-made-up-domain.com/']

# Retrieve a single page and report the URL and contents
def load_url(url, timeout):
    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 the load operations and mark each future with its URL
    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)))

ProcessPoolExecutor (source)

import concurrent.futures
import math

PRIMES = [
    112272535095293,
    112582705942171,
    112272535095293,
    115280095190773,
    115797848077099,
    1099726899285419]

def is_prime(n):
    if n % 2 == 0:
        return False

    sqrt_n = int(math.floor(math.sqrt(n)))
    for i in range(3, sqrt_n + 1, 2):
        if n % i == 0:
            return False
    return True

def main():
    with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor:
        for number, prime in zip(PRIMES, executor.map(is_prime, PRIMES)):
            print('%d is prime: %s' % (number, prime))

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

Using the blazing new concurrent.futures module

def sqr(val):
    import time
    time.sleep(0.1)
    return val * val

def process_result(result):
    print(result)

def process_these_asap(tasks):
    import concurrent.futures

    with concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor:
        futures = []
        for task in tasks:
            futures.append(executor.submit(sqr, task))

        for future in concurrent.futures.as_completed(futures):
            process_result(future.result())
        # Or instead of all this just do:
        # results = executor.map(sqr, tasks)
        # list(map(process_result, results))

def main():
    tasks = list(range(10))
    print('Processing {} tasks'.format(len(tasks)))
    process_these_asap(tasks)
    print('Done')
    return 0

if __name__ == '__main__':
    import sys
    sys.exit(main())

The executor approach might seem familiar to all those who have gotten their hands dirty with Java before.

Also on a side note: To keep the universe sane, don’t forget to close your pools/executors if you don’t use with context (which is so awesome that it does it for you)

For me, the perfect example for threading is monitoring asynchronous events. Look at this code.

# thread_test.py
import threading
import time

class Monitor(threading.Thread):
    def __init__(self, mon):
        threading.Thread.__init__(self)
        self.mon = mon

    def run(self):
        while True:
            if self.mon[0] == 2:
                print "Mon = 2"
                self.mon[0] = 3;

You can play with this code by opening an IPython session and doing something like:

>>> from thread_test import Monitor
>>> a = [0]
>>> mon = Monitor(a)
>>> mon.start()
>>> a[0] = 2
Mon = 2
>>>a[0] = 2
Mon = 2

Wait a few minutes

>>> a[0] = 2
Mon = 2

Most documentation and tutorials use Python’s Threading and Queue module, and they could seem overwhelming for beginners.

Perhaps consider the concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor module of Python 3.

Combined with with clause and list comprehension it could be a real charm.

from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor, as_completed

def get_url(url):
    # Your actual program here. Using threading.Lock() if necessary
    return ""

# List of URLs to fetch
urls = ["url1", "url2"]

with ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers = 5) as executor:

    # Create threads
    futures = {executor.submit(get_url, url) for url in urls}

    # as_completed() gives you the threads once finished
    for f in as_completed(futures):
        # Get the results
        rs = f.result()

I saw a lot of examples here where no real work was being performed, and they were mostly CPU-bound. Here is an example of a CPU-bound task that computes all prime numbers between 10 million and 10.05 million. I have used all four methods here:

import math
import timeit
import threading
import multiprocessing
from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor, ProcessPoolExecutor


def time_stuff(fn):
    """
    Measure time of execution of a function
    """
    def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
        t0 = timeit.default_timer()
        fn(*args, **kwargs)
        t1 = timeit.default_timer()
        print("{} seconds".format(t1 - t0))
    return wrapper

def find_primes_in(nmin, nmax):
    """
    Compute a list of prime numbers between the given minimum and maximum arguments
    """
    primes = []

    # Loop from minimum to maximum
    for current in range(nmin, nmax + 1):

        # Take the square root of the current number
        sqrt_n = int(math.sqrt(current))
        found = False

        # Check if the any number from 2 to the square root + 1 divides the current numnber under consideration
        for number in range(2, sqrt_n + 1):

            # If divisible we have found a factor, hence this is not a prime number, lets move to the next one
            if current % number == 0:
                found = True
                break

        # If not divisible, add this number to the list of primes that we have found so far
        if not found:
            primes.append(current)

    # I am merely printing the length of the array containing all the primes, but feel free to do what you want
    print(len(primes))

@time_stuff
def sequential_prime_finder(nmin, nmax):
    """
    Use the main process and main thread to compute everything in this case
    """
    find_primes_in(nmin, nmax)

@time_stuff
def threading_prime_finder(nmin, nmax):
    """
    If the minimum is 1000 and the maximum is 2000 and we have four workers,
    1000 - 1250 to worker 1
    1250 - 1500 to worker 2
    1500 - 1750 to worker 3
    1750 - 2000 to worker 4
    so let’s split the minimum and maximum values according to the number of workers
    """
    nrange = nmax - nmin
    threads = []
    for i in range(8):
        start = int(nmin + i * nrange/8)
        end = int(nmin + (i + 1) * nrange/8)

        # Start the thread with the minimum and maximum split up to compute
        # Parallel computation will not work here due to the GIL since this is a CPU-bound task
        t = threading.Thread(target = find_primes_in, args = (start, end))
        threads.append(t)
        t.start()

    # Don’t forget to wait for the threads to finish
    for t in threads:
        t.join()

@time_stuff
def processing_prime_finder(nmin, nmax):
    """
    Split the minimum, maximum interval similar to the threading method above, but use processes this time
    """
    nrange = nmax - nmin
    processes = []
    for i in range(8):
        start = int(nmin + i * nrange/8)
        end = int(nmin + (i + 1) * nrange/8)
        p = multiprocessing.Process(target = find_primes_in, args = (start, end))
        processes.append(p)
        p.start()

    for p in processes:
        p.join()

@time_stuff
def thread_executor_prime_finder(nmin, nmax):
    """
    Split the min max interval similar to the threading method, but use a thread pool executor this time.
    This method is slightly faster than using pure threading as the pools manage threads more efficiently.
    This method is still slow due to the GIL limitations since we are doing a CPU-bound task.
    """
    nrange = nmax - nmin
    with ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers = 8) as e:
        for i in range(8):
            start = int(nmin + i * nrange/8)
            end = int(nmin + (i + 1) * nrange/8)
            e.submit(find_primes_in, start, end)

@time_stuff
def process_executor_prime_finder(nmin, nmax):
    """
    Split the min max interval similar to the threading method, but use the process pool executor.
    This is the fastest method recorded so far as it manages process efficiently + overcomes GIL limitations.
    RECOMMENDED METHOD FOR CPU-BOUND TASKS
    """
    nrange = nmax - nmin
    with ProcessPoolExecutor(max_workers = 8) as e:
        for i in range(8):
            start = int(nmin + i * nrange/8)
            end = int(nmin + (i + 1) * nrange/8)
            e.submit(find_primes_in, start, end)

def main():
    nmin = int(1e7)
    nmax = int(1.05e7)
    print("Sequential Prime Finder Starting")
    sequential_prime_finder(nmin, nmax)
    print("Threading Prime Finder Starting")
    threading_prime_finder(nmin, nmax)
    print("Processing Prime Finder Starting")
    processing_prime_finder(nmin, nmax)
    print("Thread Executor Prime Finder Starting")
    thread_executor_prime_finder(nmin, nmax)
    print("Process Executor Finder Starting")
    process_executor_prime_finder(nmin, nmax)

main()

Here are the results on my Mac OS X four-core machine

Sequential Prime Finder Starting
9.708213827005238 seconds
Threading Prime Finder Starting
9.81836523200036 seconds
Processing Prime Finder Starting
3.2467174359990167 seconds
Thread Executor Prime Finder Starting
10.228896902000997 seconds
Process Executor Finder Starting
2.656402041000547 seconds