Efficiently Exploiting Multiple Cores with Python


21st June, 2015

Last Updated:

21st June, 2015

Both the Python reference interpreter (CPython), and the alternative interpeter that offers the fastest single-threaded performance for pure Python code (PyPy) use a Global Interpreter Lock to avoid various problems that arise when using threading models that implicitly allowing concurrent access to objects from multiple threads of execution.

This approach has been the source of much debate, both online and off-, so this article aims to summarise the design trade-offs involved, and give details on some of the prospects for improvement that are being investigated.

Why is using a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) a problem?

The key issue with Python implementations that rely on a GIL (most notably CPython and PyPy) is that it makes them entirely unsuitable for cases where a developer wishes to:

  • use shared memory threading to exploit multiple cores on a single machine

  • write their entire application in Python, including CPU bound elements

  • use CPython or PyPy as their interpreter

This combination of requirements simply doesn’t work - the GIL effectively restricts bytecode execution to a single core, thus rendering pure Python threads an ineffective tool for distributing CPU bound work across multiple cores.

At this point, one of those requirements has to give. The developer has to either:

  • use a parallel execution technique other than shared memory threading

    The main alternative provided in the standard library for CPU bound applications is the multiprocessing module, which works well for workloads that consist of relatively small numbers of long running computational tasks, but results in excessive message passing overhead if the duration of individual operations is short

  • move parts of the application out into binary extension modules, including wrappers for existing third party libraries

    This is the path taken by the NumPy/SciPy community, Cython users and many other people using Python as a glue language to bind disparate components together

  • use a Python implementation that doesn’t rely on a GIL

    While the main purpose of Jython and IronPython is to interoperate with other JVM and CLR components, they are also free threaded thanks to the cross-platform threading primitives provide by the underlying virtual machines.

  • use a language other than Python for the entire application

    This is a popular approach for established systems where the problem domain is now well understood and the service’s scope is stable. In these kinds of situations, efficiency-of-execution considerations start to weigh more heavily than ease-of-modification considerations in the choice of development language, which tends to count heavily against languages like Python that deliberately avoid doing any kind of inter-module consistency analysis at compile time.

    This approach also works very well for applications that happen to fall entirely within the purview of more specialised languages, such as JavaScript for web service development, Go for network services and command line applications, and Julia for data analysis.

Many Python developers find this annoying - they want to use threads to take full advantage of multicore machines and they want to use Python, but they have the CPython and PyPy core developers in their way saying “Sorry, we don’t recommend that style of programming”.

What alternative approaches are available?

Assuming that a free-threaded Python implementation like Jython or IronPython isn’t suitable for a given application, then there are two main approaches to handling distribution of CPU bound Python workloads across multiple cores in the presence of a GIL. Which one will be more appropriate will depend on the specific task and developer preference.

The approach most directly supported by python-dev is the use of process-based concurrency rather than thread-based concurrency. All major threading APIs have a process-based equivalent, allowing threading to be used for concurrent synchronous IO calls, while multiple processes can be used for concurrent CPU bound calculations in Python code. The strict memory separation imposed by using multiple processes also makes it much easier to avoid many of the common traps of multi-threaded code. As another added bonus, for applications which would benefit from scaling beyond the limits of a single machine, starting with multiple processes means that any reliance on shared memory will already be gone, removing one of the major stumbling blocks to distributed processing.

The main downside of this approach is that the overhead of message serialisation and interprocess communication can significantly increase the response latency and reduce the overall throughput of an application (see this PyCon 2015 presentation from David Beazley for some example figures). Whether or not this overhead is considered acceptable in any given application will depend on the relative proportion of time that application ends up spending on interprocess communication overhead versus doing useful work.

The major alternative approach promoted by the community is best represented by Cython. Cython is a Python superset designed to be compiled down to CPython C extension modules. One of the features Cython offers (as is possible from any binary extension module) is the ability to explicitly release the GIL around a section of code. By releasing the GIL in this fashion, Cython code can fully exploit all cores on a machine for computationally intensive sections of the code, while retaining all the benefits of Python for other parts of the application.

Numba is another tool in a similar vein - it uses LLVM to convert Python code to machine code that can run with the GIL released (as well as exploiting vector operations provided by the CPU when appopriate).

This approach also works when calling out to any code written in other languages: release the GIL when handing over control to the external library, reacquire it when returning control to the Python interpreter. Many binary extension modules for Python already do this implicitly (especially those developed by the members of the Python community focused on data analysis tasks).

Why hasn’t resolving this been a priority for the core development team?

Speaking for myself, I came to Python by way of the unittest module: I needed to write a better test suite for a C++ library that communicated with a custom DSP application, and by using SWIG and the Python unittest module I was able to do so easily. Using Python for the test suite also let me easily play audio files out of the test hardware into the DSP unit being tested. Still in the test domain, I later used Python to communicate with serial hardware (and push data through serial circuits and analyse what came back), write prototype clients to ensure new hardware systems were full functional replacements for old ones and write hardware simulators to allow more integration errors to be caught during software development rather than only after new releases were deployed to the test lab that had real hardware available.

Other current Python users are often in a similar situation: we’re using Python as an orchestration language, getting other pieces of hardware and software to play nice, so the Python components just need to be “fast enough”, and allow multiple external operations to occur in parallel, rather than necessarily needing to run Python bytecode operations concurrently. When our Python code isn’t the bottleneck in our overall system throughput, and we aren’t operating at a scale where even small optimisations to our software can have a significant impact on our overall CPU time and power consumption costs, then investing effort in speeding up our Python code doesn’t offer a good return on our time.

This is certainly true of the scientific community, where the heavy numeric lifting is often done in C or FORTRAN, and the Python components are there to make everything hang together in a way that humans can read relatively easily.

In the case of web development, while the speed of the application server may become a determining factor at truly massive scale, smaller applications are likely to gain more through language independent techniques like adding a Varnish caching server in front of the overall application, and a memory cache to avoid repeating calcuations for common inputs before the application code itself is likely to become the bottleneck.

This means for the kind of use case where Python is primarily playing an orchestration role, as well as those where the application is IO bound rather than CPU bound, being able to run across multiple cores doesn’t really provide a lot of benefit - the Python code was never the bottleneck in the first place, so focusing optimisation efforts on the Python components doesn’t make sense.

Instead, people drop out of pure Python code into an environment that is vastly easier to optimise and already supports running across multiple cores within a single process. This may be hand written C or C++ code, it may be something with Pythonic syntax but reduced dynamism like Cython or Numba, or it may be another more static language on a preexisting runtime like the JVM or the CLR, but however it is achieved, the level shift allows optimisations and parallelism to be applied at the places where they will do the most good for the overall speed of the application.

Why isn’t “just remove the GIL” the obvious answer?

Removing the GIL is the obvious answer. The problem with this phrase is the “just” part, not the “remove the GIL” part.

One of the key issues with threading models built on shared non-transactional memory is that they are a broken approach to general purpose concurrency. Armin Rigo has explained that far more eloquently than I can in the introduction to his Software Transactional Memory work for PyPy, but the general idea is that threading is to concurrency as the Python 2 Unicode model is to text handling - it works great a lot of the time, but if you make a mistake (which is inevitable in any non-trivial program) the consequences are unpredictable (and often catastrophic from an application stability point of view), and the resulting situations are frequently a nightmare to debug.

The advantages of GIL-style coarse grained locking for the CPython interpreter implementation are that it makes naively threaded code more likely to run correctly, greatly simplifies the interpreter implementation (thus increasing general reliability and ease of porting to other platforms) and has almost zero overhead when running in single-threaded mode for simple scripts or event driven applications which don’t need to interact with any synchronous APIs (as the GIL is not initialised until the threading support is imported, or initialised via the C API, the only overhead is a boolean check to see if the GIL has been created).

The CPython development team have long had an essential list of requirements that any major improvement to CPython’s parallel execution support would be expected to meet before it could be considered for incorporation into the reference interpreter:

  • must not substantially slow down single-threaded applications

  • must not substantially increase latency times in IO bound applications

  • threading support must remain optional to ease porting to platforms with no (or broken) threading primitives

  • must minimise breakage of current end user Python code that implicitly relies on the coarse-grained locking provided by the GIL (I recommend consulting Armin’s STM introduction on the challenges posed by this)

  • must remain compatible with existing third party C extensions that rely on refcounting and the GIL (I recommend consulting with the cpyext and IronClad developers both on the difficulty of meeting this requirement, and the lack of interest many parts of the community have in any Python implementation that doesn’t abide by it)

  • must achieve all of these without reducing the number of supported platforms for CPython, or substantially increasing the difficulty of porting the CPython interpreter to a new platform (I recommend consulting with the JVM and CLR developers on the difficulty of producing and maintaining high performance cross platform threading primitives).

It is important to keep in mind that CPython already has a significant user base (sufficient to see Python ranked by IEEE Spectrum in 2014 as one of the top 5 programming languages in the world), and it’s necessarily the case that these users either don’t find the GIL to be an intolerable burden for their use cases, or else find it to be a problem that is tolerably easy to work around.

Core development efforts in the concurrency and parallelism arena have thus historically focused on better serving the needs of those users by providing better primitives for easily distributing work across multiple processes, and to perform multiple IO operations in parallel. Examples of this approach include the initial incorporation of the multiprocessing module, which aims to make it easy to migrate from threaded code to multiprocess code, along with the addition of the concurrent.futures module in Python 3.2, which aims to make it easy to take serial code and dispatch it to multiple threads (for IO bound operations) or multiple processes (for CPU bound operations), the asyncio module in Python 3.4 (which provides full support for explicit asynchronous programming in the standard library) and the introduction of the dedicated async/await syntax for native coroutines in Python 3.5.

For IO bound code (with no CPU bound threads present), or, equivalently, code that invokes external libraries to perform calculations (as is the case for most serious number crunching code, such as that using NumPy and/or Cython), the GIL does place an additional constraint on the application, but one that is acceptable in many cases: a single core must be able to handle all Python execution on the machine, with other cores either left idle (IO bound systems) or busy handling calculations (external library invocations). If that is not the case, then multiple interpreter processes will be needed, just as they are in the case of any CPU bound Python threads.

What are the key problems with fine-grained locking as an answer?

For seriously parallel problems, a free threaded interpreter that uses fine-grained locking to scale across multiple cores doesn’t help all that much, as it is desired to scale not only to multiple cores on a single machine, but to multiple machines. As soon as a second machine enters the picture, shared memory based concurrency can’t help you: you need to use a parallel execution model (such as message passing or a shared datastore) that allows information to be passed between processes, either on a single machine or on multiple machines. (Folks that have this kind of problem to solve would be well advised to investigate the viability of adopting Apache Spark as their computational platform, either directly or through the Blaze abstraction layer)

CPython also has another problem that limits the effectiveness of removing the GIL by switching to fine-grained locking: we use a reference counting garbage collector with cycle detection. This hurts free threading in two major ways: firstly, any free threaded solution that retains the reference counting GC will still need a global lock that protects the integrity of the reference counts; secondly, switching threads in the CPython runtime will mean updating the reference counts on a whole new working set of objects, almost certainly blowing the CPU cache and losing some of the speed benefits gained from making more effective use of multiple cores.

So for a truly free-threaded interpreter, the reference counting GC would likely have to go as well, or be replaced with an allocation model that uses a separate heap per thread by default, creating yet another compatibility problem for C extensions (and one that we already know from experience with PyPy, Jython and IronPython poses significant barriers to runtime adoption).

These various factors all combine to explain why it’s unlikely we’ll ever see CPython’s coarse-graining locking model replaced by a fine-grained locking model within the scope of the CPython project itself:

  • a coarse-grained lock makes threaded code behave in a less surprising fashion

  • a coarse-grained lock makes the implementation substantially simpler

  • a coarse-grained lock imposes negligible overhead on the scripting use case

  • fine-grained locking provides no benefits to single-threaded code (such as end user scripts)

  • fine-grained locking may break end user code that implicitly relies on CPython’s use of coarse grained locking

  • fine-grained locking provides minimal benefits to event-based code that uses threads solely to provide asynchronous access to external synchronous interfaces (such as web applications using an event based framework like Twisted or gevent, or GUI applications using the GUI event loop)

  • fine-grained locking provides minimal benefits to code that uses other languages like Cython, C or Fortran for the serious number crunching (as is common in the NumPy/SciPy community)

  • fine-grained locking provides no substantial benefits to code that needs to scale to multiple machines, and thus cannot rely on shared memory for data exchange

  • a refcounting GC doesn’t really play well with fine-grained locking (primarily from the point of view of high contention on the lock that protects the integrity of the refcounts, but also the bad effects on caching when switching to different threads and writing to the refcount fields of a new working set of objects)

  • increasing the complexity of the core interpreter implementation for any reason always poses risks to maintainability, reliability and portability

It isn’t that a free threaded Python implementation that complies with the Python Language and Library References isn’t possible (Jython and IronPython prove that’s not the case), it’s that free threaded virtual machines are hard to write correctly in the first place and are harder to maintain once implemented. For CPython specifically, any engineering effort directed towards free threading support is engineering effort that isn’t being directed somewhere else. The current core development team don’t consider that to be a good trade-off when there are other far more interesting options still to be explored.

What does the future look like for exploitation of multiple cores in Python?

For CPython, Eric Snow has started working with Dr Sarah Mount (at the University of Wolverhamption) to investigate some speculative ideas I published a few years back regarding the possibility of refining CPython’s subinterpreter support to make it a first class language feature that offered true in-process support for parallel exploitation of multiple cores in a way that didn’t break compatibility with C extension modules (at least, not any more than using subinterpreters in combination with extensions that call back into Python from C created threads already breaks it).

For PyPy, Armin Rigo and others are actively pursuing research into the use of Software Transactional Memory to allow event driven programs to be scaled transparently across multiple CPU cores. I know he has some thoughts on how the concepts he is exploring in PyPy could be translated back to CPython, but even if that doesn’t pan out, it’s very easy to envision a future where CPython is used for command line utilities (which are generally single threaded and often so short running that the PyPy JIT never gets a chance to warm up) and embedded systems, while PyPy takes over the execution of long running scripts and applications, letting them run substantially faster and span multiple cores without requiring any modifications to the Python code. Splitting the role of the two VMs in that fashion would allow each to be optimised appropriately rather than having to make trade-offs that attempt to balance the starkly different needs of the various use cases.

I also expect we’ll continue to add APIs and features designed to make it easier to farm work out to other processes (for example, the new iteration of the pickle protocol in Python 3.4 included the ability to unpickle unbound methods by name, which allow them to be used with the multiprocessing APIs).

For data processing workloads, Python users that would prefer something simpler to deploy than Apache Spark, don’t want to compile their own C extensions with Cython, and have data which exceeds the capacity of NumPy’s in-memory calculation model on the systems they have access to, may wish to investigate the Dask project, which aims to offer the features of core components of the Scientific Python ecosystem (notably, NumPy and Pandas) in a form which is limited by the capacity of local disk storage, rather than the capacity of local memory.

Another potentially interesting project is Trent Nelson’s PyParallel work on using memory page locking to permit the creation of “shared nothing” worker threads, that would permit the use of a more Rust-style memory model within CPython without introducing a distinct subinterpreter based parallel execution model.

Alex Gaynor also pointed out some interesting research (PDF) into replacing Ruby’s Giant VM Lock (the equivalent to CPython’s GIL in CRuby, aka the Matz Ruby Interpreter) with appropriate use of Hardware Transactional Memory, which may also prove relevant to CPython as HTM capable hardware becomes more common. (However, note the difficulties that the refcounting in MRI caused the researchers - CPython is likely to have exactly the same problem, with a well established history of attempting to eliminate and then emulate the refcounting causing major compatibility problems with extension modules).

Comments powered by Disqus