Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

multiprocessing's default posix start method of 'fork' is broken: change to 'spawn' #84559

Open
itamarst mannequin opened this issue Apr 24, 2020 · 14 comments
Open

multiprocessing's default posix start method of 'fork' is broken: change to 'spawn' #84559

itamarst mannequin opened this issue Apr 24, 2020 · 14 comments
Assignees
Labels
expert-multiprocessing type-feature A feature request or enhancement

Comments

@itamarst
Copy link
Mannequin

itamarst mannequin commented Apr 24, 2020

BPO 40379
Nosy @pitrou, @mgorny, @Julian, @wimglenn, @applio, @itamarst

Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2020-04-24.18:22:23.389>
labels = ['3.8', 'type-bug', '3.7', '3.9']
title = "multiprocessing's default start method of fork()-without-exec() is broken"
updated_at = <Date 2022-02-11.16:13:53.872>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/itamarst'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2022-02-11.16:13:53.872>
actor = 'mgorny'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = []
creation = <Date 2020-04-24.18:22:23.389>
creator = 'itamarst'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 40379
keywords = []
message_count = 11.0
messages = ['367210', '367211', '368173', '380478', '392358', '392501', '392503', '392506', '392507', '392508', '413081']
nosy_count = 8.0
nosy_names = ['pitrou', 'mgorny', 'Julian', 'wim.glenn', 'itamarst', 'davin', 'itamarst2', 'aduncan']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = None
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'behavior'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue40379'
versions = ['Python 3.5', 'Python 3.6', 'Python 3.7', 'Python 3.8', 'Python 3.9']

Linked PRs

@itamarst
Copy link
Mannequin Author

itamarst mannequin commented Apr 24, 2020

By default, multiprocessing uses fork() without exec() on POSIX. For a variety of reasons this can lead to inconsistent state in subprocesses: module-level globals are copied, which can mess up logging, threads don't survive fork(), etc..

The end results vary, but quite often are silent lockups.

In real world usage, this results in users getting mysterious hangs they do not have the knowledge to debug.

The fix for these people is to use "spawn" by default, which is the default on Windows.

Just a small sample:

  1. Today I talked to a scientist who spent two weeks stuck, until she found my article on the subject (https://codewithoutrules.com/2018/09/04/python-multiprocessing/). Basically multiprocessing locked up, doing nothing forever. Switching to "spawn" fixed it.
  2. Default multiprocessing context is broken and should never be used dask/dask#3759 (comment) is someone who had issues fixed by "spawn".
  3. matmul operator @ can freeze / hang when used with default python multiprocessing using fork context instead of spawn numpy/numpy#15973 is a NumPy issue which apparently impacted scikit-learn.

I suggest changing the default on POSIX to match Windows.

@itamarst itamarst mannequin added 3.7 3.8 3.9 type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error labels Apr 24, 2020
@itamarst
Copy link
Mannequin Author

itamarst mannequin commented Apr 24, 2020

Looks like as of 3.8 this only impacts Linux/non-macOS-POSIX, so I'll amend the above to say this will also make it consistent with macOS.

@itamarst
Copy link
Mannequin Author

itamarst mannequin commented May 5, 2020

Just got an email from someone for whom switching to "spawn" fixed a problem. Earlier this week someone tweeted about this fixing things. This keeps hitting people in the real world.

@itamarst
Copy link
Mannequin Author

itamarst mannequin commented Nov 6, 2020

Another person with the same issue: https://twitter.com/volcan01010/status/1324764531139248128

@aduncan
Copy link
Mannequin

aduncan mannequin commented Apr 29, 2021

I just ran into and fixed (thanks to itamarst's blog post) a problem likely related to this.

Multiprocessing workers performing work and sending a logging message back with success/fail info. I had a few intermittent deadlocks that became a recurring problem when I sped up the process that skipped tasks which had previously completed (I think this shortened the time between forking and attempting to send messages causing the third process to deadlock). After changing that it deadlocked *every time*.

Switching to "spawn" at the top of the main function has fixed it.

@pitrou
Copy link
Member

pitrou commented Apr 30, 2021

The problem with changing the default is that this will break any application that depends on passing non-picklable data to the child process (in addition to the potentially unexpected performance impact).

The docs already contain a significant elaboration on the matter, but feel free to submit a PR that would make the various caveats more explicit:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/multiprocessing.html#contexts-and-start-methods

@itamarst
Copy link
Mannequin Author

itamarst mannequin commented Apr 30, 2021

This change was made on macOS at some point, so why not Linux? "spawn" is already the default on macOS and Windows.

@pitrou
Copy link
Member

pitrou commented Apr 30, 2021

The macOS change was required before "fork" simply ceased to work.
Windows has always used "spawn", because no other method can be implemented on Windows.

@itamarst
Copy link
Mannequin Author

itamarst mannequin commented Apr 30, 2021

Given people's general experience, I would not say that "fork" works on Linux either. More like "99% of the time it works, 1% it randomly breaks in mysterious way".

@pitrou
Copy link
Member

pitrou commented Apr 30, 2021

Agreed, but again, changing will break some applications.

We could switch to forkserver, but we should have a transition period where a FutureWarning will be displayed if people didn't explicitly set a start method.

@mgorny
Copy link
Mannequin

mgorny mannequin commented Feb 11, 2022

After updating PyPy3 to use Python 3.9's stdlib, we hit very bad hangs because of this — literally compiling a single file with "parallel" compileall could hang. In the end, we had to revert the change in how Python 3.9 starts workers because otherwise multiprocessing would be impossible to use:

https://foss.heptapod.net/pypy/pypy/-/commit/c594b6c48a48386e8ac1f3f52d4b82f9c3e34784

This is a very bad default and what's even worse is that it often causes deadlocks that are hard to reproduce or debug. Furthermore, since "fork" is the default, people are unintentionally relying on its support for passing non-pickleable projects and are creating non-portable code. The code often becomes complex and hard to change before they discover the problem.

Before we managed to figure out how to workaround the deadlocks in PyPy3, we were experimenting with switching the default to "spawn". Unfortunately, we've hit multiple projects that didn't work with this method, precisely because of pickling problems. Furthermore, they were surprised to learn that their code wouldn't work on macOS (in the end, many people perceive Python as a language for writing portable software).

Finally, back in 2018 I've made one of my projects do parallel work using multiprocessing. It gave its users great speedup but for some it caused deadlocks that I couldn't reproduce nor debug. In the end, I had to revert it. Now that I've learned about this problem, I'm wondering if this wasn't precisely because of "fork" method.

@ezio-melotti ezio-melotti transferred this issue from another repository Apr 10, 2022
davidselassie added a commit to bytewax/bytewax that referenced this issue Apr 18, 2022
Provide a way for the calling code to specify which "multiprocessing
context" to use to spawn subprocesses. See
https://docs.python.org/3/library/multiprocessing.html#contexts-and-start-methods

I'm using this to allow us to mock out multiprocessing with
multithreading in doctests. This will also let you more easily test
differences between "spawn" and "fork" modes.

I'm defaulting to using "spawn" because I think "fork" mode was the
cause of some mysterious hanging in tests. General consensus seems to
be "spawn" is less buggy:
python/cpython#84559 I've felt like tests
are consistently faster with it.

Also uses the `multiprocessing.Manager` as a context manager so it
gets cleaned up correctly. This might have been the cause of other
hanging in local cluster execution.
davidselassie added a commit to bytewax/bytewax that referenced this issue Apr 18, 2022
Provide a way for the calling code to specify which "multiprocessing
context" to use to spawn subprocesses. See
https://docs.python.org/3/library/multiprocessing.html#contexts-and-start-methods

I'm using this to allow us to mock out multiprocessing with
multithreading in doctests. This will also let you more easily test
differences between "spawn" and "fork" modes.

I'm defaulting to using "spawn" because I think "fork" mode was the
cause of some mysterious hanging in tests. General consensus seems to
be "spawn" is less buggy:
python/cpython#84559 I've felt like tests
are consistently faster with it.

Also uses the `multiprocessing.Manager` as a context manager so it
gets cleaned up correctly. This might have been the cause of other
hanging in local cluster execution.
@itamarst
Copy link

itamarst commented Sep 21, 2022

Another example: Nelson Elhage reports that "as of recently(?) pytorch silently deadlocks (even without GPUs involved at all) using method=fork so that's been fun to debug".

Examples he provided:

@ravwojdyla
Copy link

ravwojdyla commented Dec 6, 2022

After updating a couple of libraries in a project we are working on, the code would hang without much explanation. After much debugging, I think one of the reasons for our issues is the forking default (this issue). Our business logic does not use multiprocessing, but the underlying execution engine does (in our case Luigi). Turns out that gRPC client (which was buried deep into one of our dependencies) can hang in some cases when forked grpc/grpc#18075. This was the case for us, and was very tricky to debug.

@gpshead gpshead changed the title multiprocessing's default start method of fork()-without-exec() is broken multiprocessing's default posix start method of fork()-without-exec() is broken: change the default so spawn Dec 13, 2022
@gpshead gpshead added type-feature A feature request or enhancement and removed 3.9 3.8 3.7 type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error labels Dec 13, 2022
@gpshead
Copy link
Member

gpshead commented Dec 13, 2022

general plan:

  • A DeprecationWarning in 3.12 and 3.13 when the default not-explicitly-specified start method of fork is used on platforms where that is the default.
  • 3.14: flip the default for all platforms to spawn.

per https://discuss.python.org/t/switching-default-multiprocessing-context-to-spawn-on-posix-as-well/21868

@gpshead gpshead self-assigned this Dec 13, 2022
@gpshead gpshead changed the title multiprocessing's default posix start method of fork()-without-exec() is broken: change the default so spawn multiprocessing's default posix start method of fork()-without-exec() is broken: change to spawn Dec 13, 2022
@gpshead gpshead changed the title multiprocessing's default posix start method of fork()-without-exec() is broken: change to spawn multiprocessing's default posix start method of 'fork' is broken: change to 'spawn' Dec 13, 2022
gpshead added a commit to gpshead/cpython that referenced this issue Dec 30, 2022
This starts the process. Users who don't specify their own start method
and use the default on platforms where it is 'fork' will see a
DeprecationWarning upon multiprocessing.Pool() construction or upon
multiprocessing.Process.start().
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
expert-multiprocessing type-feature A feature request or enhancement
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants