Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Python 3 multiprocessing: optimal chunk size

How do I find the optimal chunk size for multiprocessing.Pool instances?

I used this before to create a generator of n sudoku objects:

processes = multiprocessing.cpu_count()
worker_pool = multiprocessing.Pool(processes)
sudokus = worker_pool.imap_unordered(create_sudoku, range(n), n // processes + 1)

To measure the time, I use time.time() before the snippet above, then I initialize the pool as described, then I convert the generator into a list (list(sudokus)) to trigger generating the items (only for time measurement, I know this is nonsense in the final program), then I take the time using time.time() again and output the difference.

I observed that the chunk size of n // processes + 1 results in times of around 0.425 ms per object. But I also observed that the CPU is only fully loaded the first half of the process, in the end the usage goes down to 25% (on an i3 with 2 cores and hyper-threading).

If I use a smaller chunk size of int(l // (processes**2) + 1) instead, I get times of around 0.355 ms instead and the CPU load is much better distributed. It just has some small spikes down to ca. 75%, but stays high for much longer part of the process time before it goes down to 25%.

Is there an even better formula to calculate the chunk size or a otherwise better method to use the CPU most effective? Please help me to improve this multiprocessing pool's effectiveness.

like image 758
Byte Commander Avatar asked Jan 25 '16 09:01

Byte Commander


People also ask

Why multiprocessing is slow in Python?

The multiprocessing version is slower because it needs to reload the model in every map call because the mapped functions are assumed to be stateless. The multiprocessing version looks as follows. Note that in some cases, it is possible to achieve this using the initializer argument to multiprocessing.

Is multiprocessing faster in Python?

So, multiprocessing is faster when the program is CPU-bound. In cases where there is a lot of I/O in your program, threading may be more efficient because most of the time, your program is waiting for the I/O to complete. However, multiprocessing is generally more efficient because it runs concurrently.

Does multiprocessing in Python use multiple cores?

Python processes typically use a single thread because of the GIL. Despite the GIL, libraries that perform computationally heavy tasks like numpy, scipy and pytorch utilise C-based implementations under the hood, allowing the use of multiple cores.

What is chunk size?

A chunk is the largest unit of physical disk dedicated to database server data storage. Chunks provide administrators with a significantly large unit for allocating disk space. The maximum size of an individual chunk is 4 TB.


2 Answers

This answer provides a high level overview.

Going into detais, each worker is sent a chunk of chunksize tasks at a time for processing. Every time a worker completes that chunk, it needs to ask for more input via some type of inter-process communication (IPC), such as queue.Queue. Each IPC request requires a system call; due to the context switch it costs anywhere in the range of 1-10 μs, let's say 10 μs. Due to shared caching, a context switch may hurt (to a limited extent) all cores. So extremely pessimistically let's estimate the maximum possible cost of an IPC request at 100 μs.

You want the IPC overhead to be immaterial, let's say <1%. You can ensure that by making chunk processing time >10 ms if my numbers are right. So if each task takes say 1 μs to process, you'd want chunksize of at least 10000.

The main reason not to make chunksize arbitrarily large is that at the very end of the execution, one of the workers might still be running while everyone else has finished -- obviously unnecessarily increasing time to completion. I suppose in most cases a delay of 10 ms is a not a big deal, so my recommendation of targeting 10 ms chunk processing time seems safe.

Another reason a large chunksize might cause problems is that preparing the input may take time, wasting workers capacity in the meantime. Presumably input preparation is faster than processing (otherwise it should be parallelized as well, using something like RxPY). So again targeting the processing time of ~10 ms seems safe (assuming you don't mind startup delay of under 10 ms).

Note: the context switches happen every ~1-20 ms or so for non-real-time processes on modern Linux/Windows - unless of course the process makes a system call earlier. So the overhead of context switches is no more than ~1% without system calls. Whatever overhead you're creating due to IPC is in addition to that.

like image 65
max Avatar answered Dec 06 '22 15:12

max


Nothing will replace the actual time measurements. I wouldn't bother with a formula and try a constant such as 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000 instead and see what works best in your case.

like image 27
jfs Avatar answered Dec 06 '22 13:12

jfs