Is it possible to implement some kind of timeout (time limit) for fork using Parallel::ForkManager ?
Basic Parallel::ForkManager script looks like this
use Parallel::ForkManager;
my $pm = Parallel::ForkManager->new( 10 );
for ( 1 .. 1000 ) {
$pm->start and next;
# some job for fork
$pm->finish;
}
$pm->wait_all_children();
I would like to limit time for "# some job for fork". For example, if its not finished in 90 secs. then it (fork) should be killed/terminated.
I thought about using this but I have to say, that I dont know how to use it with Parallel::ForkManager.
EDIT
Thanks hobbs and ikegami. Both your suggestions worked..... but only in this basic example, not in my actual script :(.
These forks will be there forever and - to be honest - I dont know why. I use this script for couple of months. Didnt change anything (although many things depends on outside variables).
Every fork has to download a page from a website, parse it and save results to a file. It should not take more than 30 secs per fork. Timeout is set to 180 secs. Those hanging forks are totally random so its very hard to trace the problem. Thats why I came up with a temporary, simple solution - timeout & kill.
What could possibly disable (interrupt) your methods of timeout in my code ? I dont have any other alarm() anywhere in my code.
EDIT 2
One of the forks, was hanging for 1h38m and returned "timeout PID" - which is what I type in die() for alarm(). So the timeout works... but its late about 1h36,5m ;). Do you have any ideas?
Update
Sorry to update after the close, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Parallel::ForkManager also supports a run_on_start callback. This can be used to install a "child registration" function that takes care of the time()-stamping of PIDs for you.
E.g.,
$pm->run_on_start(sub { my $pid = shift; $workers{$pid} = time(); });
The upshot is that, in conjunction with run_on_wait as described below, the main loop of a P::FM doesn't have to do anything special. That is, it can remain a simple $pm->start and next, and the callbacks will take care of everything else.
Original Answer
Parallel::ForkManager's run_on_wait handler, and a bit of bookkeeping, can force hanging and ALRM-proof children to terminate.
The callback registered by that function can be run, periodically, while the $pm awaits child termination.
use strict; use warnings;
use Parallel::ForkManager;
use constant PATIENCE => 90; # seconds
our %workers;
sub dismiss_hung_workers {
while (my ($pid, $started_at) = each %workers) {
next unless time() - $started_at > PATIENCE;
kill TERM => $pid;
delete $workers{$pid};
}
}
...
sub main {
my $pm = Parallel::ForkManager->new(10);
$pm->run_on_wait(\&dismiss_hung_workers, 1); # 1 second between callback invocations
for (1 .. 1000) {
if (my $pid = $pm->start) {
$workers{$pid} = time();
next;
}
# Here we are child. Do some work.
# (Maybe install a $SIG{TERM} handler for graceful shutdown!)
...
$pm->finish;
}
$pm->wait_all_children;
}
(As others suggest, it's better to have the children regulate themselves via alarm(), but that appears intermittently unworkable for you. You could also resort to wasteful, gross hacks like having each child itself fork() or exec('bash', '-c', 'sleep 90; kill -TERM $PPID').)
All you need is one line:
use Parallel::ForkManager;
my $pm = Parallel::ForkManager->new( 10 );
for ( 1 .. 1000 ) {
$pm->start and next;
alarm 90; # <---
# some job for fork
$pm->finish;
}
$pm->wait_all_children();
You don't need to set up a signal handlers since you do mean for the process to die.
It even works if you exec in the child. It won't work on Windows, but using fork on Windows is questionable in the first place.
Just do what the answer you linked to suggests, inside the child process (i.e. between the $pm->start and next and the end of the loop. There's nothing special you need to do to make it interact with Parallel::ForkManager, other than make sure you don't accidentally kill the parent instead :)
Related
In using Parallel::ForkManager, i have few doubts. As if i am calling child process in for loop, then who will execute the next statement , parent or child. Code:
my $pm = Parallel::ForkManager->new($forks); foreach my $q (#numbers) {
my $pid = $pm->start and next;
my $res = calc($q);
if($res == error )
{return};
if (#res == some_no)
{do something and next;
}
$pm->finish(0, { result => $res, input => $q });
}....i want to know about fork return outputs and want parent process to execute 1st next and 2nd next.
Also want to know if child process end in middle, will parent be able to know it and how?
The two major sources of parallelism in perl are threading - use threads; and forking. For the latter, Parallel::ForkManager is probably the best bet out there.
However, for copying? This may not help nearly as much as you think. Your limiting factor isn't going to be CPU, it'll be IO to disk.
Parallelising IO doesn't help nearly as much as you think, and in many cases can be counter-productive - by making the disk thrash, having to write to two locations, you lower overall throughput.
I have small perl script which gets services details from mongoDB, queries its statuses and gives html output
#...some stuff to get $token
my #cmd = ('/opt/mongo/bin/mongo', '127.0.0.1:27117/service_discovery', '--quiet', '-u', 'xxx', '-p', 'xxx', '--eval', "var environ='$env'; var action='status'", '/home/mongod/www/cgi/getstatus.js');
my $mongo_out;
run \#cmd, '>>', \$mongo_out;
$json->incr_parse ($mongo_out);
while (my $obj = $json->incr_parse) {
my $hostname = "$obj->{'hostname'}";
print "<tr><td colspan=4 align=\"center\"><h4>$hostname</h4></td></tr>";
foreach my $service (#{$obj->{'services'}}) {
my $name = "$service->{'name'}";
my $port = "$service->{'port'}";
my $proto = "$service->{'proto'}";
my $request = HTTP::Request->new(GET => "${proto}://$hostname:${port}/status/service");
$request->header(Authorization => "Bearer $token");
my $ua = LWP::UserAgent->new;
$ua->timeout(2);
my $response = $ua->request($request);
my $code = $response->code();
if ($code == 200) {
my $var = %$response->{'_content'};
my $coder = JSON::XS->new->ascii->pretty->allow_nonref;
my $out = try {my $output = $coder->decode($var)} catch {undef};
if(exists $out->{'name'} && exists $out->{'version'}) {
print "<tr><td align=\"center\">$port</td><td align=\"center\">$name</td><td align=\"center\">$out->{'name'}</td><td align=\"center\">$out->{'version'}</td></tr>";
} else {
print "<tr><td align=\"center\">$port</td><td align=\"center\">$name</td><td colspan=2 align=\"center\">auth failed</td></tr>";
}
} elsif ($code == 500) {
print "<tr><td align=\"center\">$port</td><td align=\"center\">$name</td><td colspan=2 align=\"center\">offline</td></tr>";
} elsif ($code == 404) {
print "<tr><td align=\"center\">$port</td><td align=\"center\">$name</td><td colspan=2 align=\"center\">page not found</td></tr>";
}
}
}
It executes for a while, especially when some services are offline. Is it possible to query services within same host simultaneously?
This is almost a question that's too broad to answer, because ... it depends.
But yes. You have two and a half mechanism for parallelising in perl:
thread
fork
Non blocking IO.
I say two and a half, because non-blocking IO isn't really parallel, as much as solving the same problem a different way.
Implementation of parallelism is a really good way to end up with some horrific and hard to trace bugs, and requires a bit of a shift of mind set, because your code is no longer executing in a well defined sequence - the whole point is that your code might hit different bits at different times, and that can cause utter chaos.
And not least because modules you import - might well not be "thread safe" (which means they may be fine, but occasionally will break in a very unpredictable way, and you'll tear your hair out trying to track down the bug).
So with that in mind
threads
Perhaps slightly counter intuitively, if you've used threads in another language - perl threads are NOT light weight. There is a significant cost to starting them, not least because you effectively end up multiplying your memory footprint by the number of threads you are running.
I would normally suggest as a result - look at a "worker threads" model, using Thread::Queue. You start up a number of threads, and use queues to serialise the input and output from the threads.
forking
fork() is a unix native system call. You use it a lot, and it's quite efficient. It splits your program into two identical copies - including position within the code - at the point at which it's called. The only difference initially is the return code of the fork() system call - the parent will get the process ID of the child, the child will get zero.
It's quite easy to do strange thing accidentally, as both piece of code at this point are at exactly the same point in terms of loop iterations, file handles, etc. but this rapidly diverges and you can again, end up with some very strange things happening if you interact with 'shared' resources.
I would normally suggest looking at Parallel::ForkManager module as an easy way to avoid tripping yourself up with fork().
non blocking IO
You can often use something like IO::Select and the can_read method, which detects which file handles will block if you read from them - you can skip that one, until it blocks. This would also work for your use case, although it's not always applicable.
I've got examples of both the above here: Perl daemonize with child daemons
Is there an option one can give to IPC::Run which kills the process upon the parent dying? Or alternatively a simple way to kill child processes when the parent dies? I know I can do this by catching signals in the parent, but I'd rather not reinvent the wheel if a simple way to do this already exists. I understand that this may not catch SIGKILL, but that's okay, I plan to kill the parent in a more reasonable manner.
Use an END block to clean up.
my #ipc_run_harnesses;
END { $_->kill_kill for #ipc_run_harnesses }
...
for my $start ( 1..2 ) {
push #ipc_run_harnesses, IPC::Run::start( "while true; do sleep 1; echo running $start; done" );
}
sleep 10;
exit;
I frequently use the following pattern to set an upper bound to the running time of a particular code fragment in Perl:
my $TIMEOUT_IN_SECONDS = 5;
eval {
local $SIG{ALRM} = sub { die "alarm\n" };
alarm($TIMEOUT_IN_SECONDS);
# do stuff that might timeout.
alarm(0);
};
if ($#) {
# handle timeout condition.
}
My questions:
Is this the right way to do it?
Are there any circumstances under which the running time can exceed $TIMEOUT_IN_SECONDS, or is the above method bullet-proof?
You probably want to look at Sys::SigAction. I haven't used it myself, but it has some glowing reviews.
One thing to watch out for is if "stuff that might timeout" uses sleep or alarm itself. Also, in the error handling code, I assume you're prepared for errors other than a timeout.
You could also try Time::Out. I like the syntax and nested timeouts are supported..
Take care with signal handling. Perl receives signals asynchronously and they may be lost or interfere with each other if a signal is received while another signal is being handled by the callback.
Event-handling libraries' Win32 support is pretty so-so in Perl (I have to support non-cygwin Win32), so I generally use a simple polling loop for timeouts:
use Time::HiRes qw(sleep);
sub timeout {
my $timeout = shift;
my $poll_interval = shift;
my $test_condition = shift;
until ($test_condition->() || $timeout <= 0) {
$timeout -= $poll_interval;
sleep $poll_interval;
}
return $timeout > 0; # condition was met before timeout
}
my $success = timeout(30, 0.1, \&some_condition_is_met);
The sleep timer can be easily made user- or caller-configurable and unless you are doing an extremely tight loop or have multiple callers waiting on the loop (where you can end up with a race or dead lock), it is a simple, reliable, and cross-platform way to implement a timeout.
Also note that the loop overhead will mean that you cannot guarantee that the timeout is observed absolutely. $test_condition, the decrement, garbage collection, etc. can interfere.
I'm working on a mathematical model that uses data generated from XFOIL, a popular aerospace tool used to find the lift and drag coefficients on airfoils.
I have a Perl script that calls XFOIL repeatedly with different input parameters to generate the data I need. I need XFOIL to run 5,600 times, at around 100 seconds per run, soabout 6.5 days to complete.
I have a quad-core machine, but my experience as a programmer is limited, and I really only know how to use basic Perl.
I would like to run four instances of XFOIL at a time, all on their own core. Something like this:
while ( 1 ) {
for ( i = 1..4 ) {
if ( ! exists XFOIL_instance(i) ) {
start_new_XFOIL_instance(i, input_parameter_list);
}
}
}
So the program is checking (or preferably sleeping) until an XFOIL instance is free, when we can start a new instance with the new input parameter list.
Try Parallel::ForkManager. It's a module that provides a simple interface for forking off processes like this.
Here's some example code:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Parallel::ForkManager;
my #input_parameter_list =
map { join '_', ('param', $_) }
( 1 .. 15 );
my $n_processes = 4;
my $pm = Parallel::ForkManager->new( $n_processes );
for my $i ( 1 .. $n_processes ) {
$pm->start and next;
my $count = 0;
foreach my $param_set (#input_parameter_list) {
$count++;
if ( ( $count % $i ) == 0 ) {
if ( !output_exists($param_set) ) {
start_new_XFOIL_instance($param_set);
}
}
}
$pm->finish;
}
$pm->wait_all_children;
sub output_exists {
my $param_set = shift;
return ( -f "$param_set.out" );
}
sub start_new_XFOIL_instance {
my $param_set = shift;
print "starting XFOIL instance with parameters $param_set!\n";
sleep( 5 );
touch( "$param_set.out" );
print "finished run with parameters $param_set!\n";
}
sub touch {
my $fn = shift;
open FILE, ">$fn" or die $!;
close FILE or die $!;
}
You'll need to supply your own implementations for the start_new_XFOIL_instance and the output_exists functions, and you'll also want to define your own sets of parameters to pass to XFOIL.
This looks like you can use gearman for this project.
www.gearman.org
Gearman is a job queue. You can split your work flow into a lot of mini parts.
I would recommend using amazon.com or even their auction able servers to complete this project.
Spending 10cents per computing hour or less, can significantly spead up your project.
I would use gearman locally, make sure you have a "perfect" run for 5-10 of your subjobs before handing it off to an amazon compute farm.
Perl threads will take advantage of multiple cores and processors. The main pro of threads is its fairly easy to share data between the threads and coordinate their activities. A forked process cannot easily return data to the parent nor coordinate amongst themselves.
The main cons of Perl threads is they are relatively expensive to create compared to a fork, they must copy the entire program and all its data; you must have them compiled into your Perl; and they can be buggy, the older the Perl, the buggier the threads. If your work is expensive, the creation time should not matter.
Here's an example of how you might do it with threads. There's many ways to do it, this one uses Thread::Queue to create a big list of work your worker threads can share. When the queue is empty, the threads exit. The main advantages are that its easier to control how many threads are active, and you don't have to create a new, expensive thread for each bit of work.
This example shoves all the work into the queue at once, but there's no reason you can't add to the queue as you go. If you were to do that, you'd use dequeue instead of dequeue_nb which will wait around for more input.
use strict;
use warnings;
use threads;
use Thread::Queue;
# Dummy work routine
sub start_XFOIL_instance {
my $arg = shift;
print "$arg\n";
sleep 1;
}
# Read in dummy data
my #xfoil_args = <DATA>;
chomp #xfoil_args;
# Create a queue to push work onto and the threads to pull work from
# Populate it with all the data up front so threads can finish when
# the queue is exhausted. Makes things simpler.
# See https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=79733
my $queue = Thread::Queue->new(#xfoil_args);
# Create a bunch of threads to do the work
my #threads;
for(1..4) {
push #threads, threads->create( sub {
# Pull work from the queue, don't wait if its empty
while( my $xfoil_args = $queue->dequeue_nb ) {
# Do the work
start_XFOIL_instance($xfoil_args);
}
# Yell when the thread is done
print "Queue empty\n";
});
}
# Wait for threads to finish
$_->join for #threads;
__DATA__
blah
foo
bar
baz
biff
whatever
up
down
left
right
Did you consider gnu parallel parallel.
It will allow you to run several install instances of your program with different inputs and
fill your CPU cores as they begin available. It's often a very simple an efficient way to achieve parallelization of simple tasks.
This is quite old but if someone is still looking for suitable answers to this question, you might want to consider Perl Many-Core-Engine (MCE)