Parallelism
Parallelism is more likely to be what we might think of when we talk about concurrent programming. Whereas concurrency does not actually lead to N number of tasks being executed at the same time, parallelism does mean that in the truest form.
So you're probably thinking, well if concurrency means our program only executes instructions from 1 task at any 1 given time then why would we ever use it? Why not just always use parallelism?
When do we need parallelism?
By nature, parallelism incurs additional overhead. It takes time to create multiple sub-processes, this overhead is particularly stark when compared to the amount of time taken to spin up a pool of threads, which is significantly less. So depending on the operations being ran, parallelism could end up putting us in a worse position. In fact, depending on the task we might even have been better off running them sequentially!
The other thing with parallelism is we are consuming more hardware resources. Each process is assigned to a CPU core along with its own memory allocation. This is needed if the task entails some kind of intense calculation which is happening within the process. This is known as a CPU bound or memory bound task. But if the work is happening outside of the process like a request being made to an external API or a database query, then the additional resources don't do anything for us. In fact the additonal overhead associated with creating the multiple processes becomes a net negative factor for us.
An example CPU bound problem
In this case, we're gonna work backwards. We will define the problem first by writing the source code:
import logging
import time
from multiprocessing.pool import Pool
from random import randrange
from typing import Callable
logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)
def run_with_multiple_processes(func: Callable, number_of_processes: int) -> None:
print(f"Creating pool of {number_of_processes} processes")
indexes = [i for i in range(number_of_processes)]
with Pool(processes=number_of_processes) as pool:
pool.map(func, indexes)
def cpu_bound_operation(index: int) -> None:
print(f"Starting CPU bound operation for process number {index}")
nnumber = 10_000_000
count(number=number)
print(f"Finished CPU bound operation for process number {index}")
def count(number: int) -> None:
start_time = time.time()
result = 0
while result < number:
result += 1
end_time = time.time()
elapsed_time: float = round(end_time - start_time, 2)
print(f"Finished counting to {number} in {elapsed_time}s")On lines 25-36 we define a count() function which counts up to a given number, starting from 0.
And then on lines 18-22 we define another function called cpu_bound_operation(). On line 20, we define a variable with an integer of 10 million.
On line 21 we pass the number we just saved into a call to the count() function. All of this means the cpu_bound_operation() function counts from 0 to 10 milliion each time it is called.
We consider this to be a CPU bound problem because the operation is an intensive calculation being performed by the process which in turn is limited by the speed of the CPU.
Write the test for parallel execution
To start off with lets write a test for executing our cpu_bound_operation() with multiple processes.
import time
from src.multi_processing import run_with_multiple_processes, cpu_bound_operation
class TestMultiprocessing:
def test_multiprocessing_can_run_multiple_cpu_bound_operations(self):
"""
Given a callable which performs an intensive CPU bound operation
When `run_with_multiple_processes()` is called
to run the callable with 10 processes
Then the total elapsed time is reduced
when compared to sequential execution
"""
# Given
start_time = time.time()
number_of_processes = 10
# When / Then
run_with_multiple_processes(
func=cpu_bound_operation, number_of_processes=number_of_processes
)
# Then
end_time = time.time()
elapsed_time: float = round(end_time - start_time, 2)
print(f"Total execution took {elapsed_time}s")In this test we pass our callable to the run_with_mutiple_processes() function whilst asking for a pool of 10 processes.
If we run this test we can see something that looks like the following:
test_multi_processing.py::TestMultiprocessing::test_multiprocessing_can_run_multiple_cpu_bound_operations
============================== 1 passed in 0.78s ===============================
PASSED [100%]Creating pool of 10 processes
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 0
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 1
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 2
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 3
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 4
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 5
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 6
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 7
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 8
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 9
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.45s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 1
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.49s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 0
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.45s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 5
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.48s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 3
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.44s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 7
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.49s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 2
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.47s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 4
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.46s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 6
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.45s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 8
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.44s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 9
Total execution took 0.76s
Process finished with exit code 0We can see that all the processes are created at the same time. They run independently of each other and complete whenever their specific task has been executed to completion. In total it took 0.76s to count to 10 million on seperate occasions.
Write the test for sequential execution
And to compare this against sequential execution, we'll need another test:
import time
from src.multi_processing import run_with_multiple_processes, cpu_bound_operation
class TestMultiprocessing:
...
def test_running_multiple_cpu_bound_operations_sequentially(self):
"""
Given a callable which performs an intensive CPU bound operation
When the callable is executed 10 times
Then the total elapsed time is greater
when compared to parallel execution
"""
# Given
start_time = time.time()
number_of_executions = 10
# When / Then
for i in range(number_of_executions):
cpu_bound_operation(index=i)
# Then
end_time = time.time()
elapsed_time: float = round(end_time - start_time, 2)
print(f"Total execution took {elapsed_time}s")If we run this now we'll see the difference. It takes signficantly longer than we were running with the multiple processes:
test_multi_processing.py::TestMultiprocessing::test_running_multiple_cpu_bound_operations_sequentially
============================== 1 passed in 2.15s ===============================
PASSED [100%]Starting CPU bound operation for process number 0
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.21s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 0
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 1
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.21s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 1
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 2
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.21s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 2
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 3
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.21s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 3
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 4
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.21s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 4
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 5
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.21s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 5
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 6
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.21s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 6
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 7
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.21s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 7
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 8
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.21s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 8
Starting CPU bound operation for process number 9
Finished counting to 10000000 in 0.21s
Finished CPU bound operation for process number 9
Total execution took 2.13s
Process finished with exit code 0Comparing the total execution time of 2.13s to 0.76s and we can see just how stark the difference is, and this of course includes all the overhead associated with spinning up multiple processes to begin with.
IO bound tasks with multi processing?
To begin, lets write a test. It is going to be very similar to a test we wrote in the previous section. This time we want to spin up 10 processes to point against our IO bound operation.
Lets create the files and get started:
touch src/multi_processing.py tests/test_multi_processing.pyNote that we've named this file multi_processing.py and not multiprocessing because that would clash with the built-in library multiprocessing that we'll be using.
These files are not particularly well named, but that's okay for now. The sole purpose of the code we've written together so far is to help us learn and grasp new concepts.
Now lets head over to our new test file:
import time
from src.concurrency import (
io_bound_operation,
SECONDS_TAKEN_FOR_SINGLE_IO_OPERATION,
)
from src.multi_processing import run_with_multiple_processes, cpu_bound_operation
class TestMultiprocessing:
...
def test_multiprocessing_can_run_multiple_io_bound_operations(self):
"""
Given a callable which emulates a long I/O operation
When `run_with_multiple_processes()` is called
to run the callable with 10 processes
Then the total elapsed time is slightly greater
than the time taken for 1 process to complete
"""
# Given
start_time = time.time()
number_of_processes = 10
# When
run_with_multiple_processes(
func=io_bound_operation, number_of_processes=number_of_processes
)
# Then
end_time = time.time()
elapsed_time: float = round(end_time - start_time, 2)
time_taken_for_sequential_operations: int = (
number_of_processes * SECONDS_TAKEN_FOR_SINGLE_IO_OPERATION
)
assert (
SECONDS_TAKEN_FOR_SINGLE_IO_OPERATION
<= elapsed_time
< time_taken_for_sequential_operations
)Implement the functionality
And once again, we should go and implement our new run_with_multiple_processes() function in the source file:
from multiprocessing.pool import Pool
from typing import Callable
def run_with_multiple_processes(func: Callable, number_of_processes: int) -> None:
print(f"Creating pool of {number_of_processes} processes")
indexes = [i for i in range(number_of_processes)]
with Pool(processes=number_of_processes) as pool:
pool.map(func, indexes)This should look pretty familiar if you followed the concurrency section.
In fact the main difference is on the very first line. We import the Pool class from the multiprocessing library. This Pool class provides the same API as the ThreadPool class provided for us to use in the previous section.
The Pool object on line 9 provides a pool of worker processes for us to use. The Pool object also manages the processes on our behalf. Again this is done in the same way as we saw with the ThreadPool. The Pool will open and close the processes as required without any additional work from our side of things.
Witnessing the overhead firsthand
So if we run this test as is, it will pass:
============================= test session starts ==============================
collecting ... collected 1 item
test_multi_processing.py::TestMultiprocessing::test_multiprocessing_can_run_multiple_io_bound_operations
============================== 1 passed in 5.26s ===============================
PASSED [100%]Creating pool of 10 processes
Starting io bound operation for thread number 0
Starting io bound operation for thread number 2
Starting io bound operation for thread number 1
Starting io bound operation for thread number 3
Starting io bound operation for thread number 5
Starting io bound operation for thread number 4
Starting io bound operation for thread number 6
Starting io bound operation for thread number 7
Starting io bound operation for thread number 8
Starting io bound operation for thread number 9
Finished io bound operation for thread number 0 in 5s
Finished io bound operation for thread number 1 in 5s
Finished io bound operation for thread number 2 in 5s
Finished io bound operation for thread number 3 in 5s
Finished io bound operation for thread number 6 in 5s
Finished io bound operation for thread number 4 in 5s
Finished io bound operation for thread number 5 in 5s
Finished io bound operation for thread number 7 in 5s
Finished io bound operation for thread number 8 in 5s
Finished io bound operation for thread number 9 in 5s
Process finished with exit code 0Everything looks as we expect right?
Now take a look at the total amount of time the test took to run. It took 5.26s when we tackled the problem with processes compared to 5.03s with threads. That is a 203ms increase. You might not think that's a big deal, but in computing that is an age! Now imagine you have any kind of scale around this problem and we've introduced serious overhead for no net positive impact, especially when we know threading could have resolved our problem here in less time and with less resources.
What would a memory bound task look like?
So we've covered parallelism to address a CPU bound problem. But what would the equivalent memory bound operation look like?
The main difference would be holding onto data in some kind of data structure. For example, instead of simply running a large counter we would have appended each integer to a list.
References
Last updated