| =============================================== |
| Advanced Topic with Python Channel Access |
| =============================================== |
|
|
| This chapter contains a variety of "usage notes" and implementation |
| details that may help in getting the best performance from the |
| pyepics module. |
|
|
|
|
| .. _advanced-get-timeouts-label: |
|
|
|
|
| The wait and timeout options for get(), ca.get_complete() |
| ============================================================== |
|
|
| The *get* functions, :func:`epics.caget`, :func:`pv.get` and :func:`epics.ca.get` |
| all ask for data to be transferred over the network. For large data arrays |
| or slow networks, this can can take a noticeable amount of time. For PVs |
| that have been disconnected, the *get* call will fail to return a value at |
| all. For this reason, these functions all take a `timeout` keyword option. |
| The lowest level :func:`epics.ca.get` also has a `wait` option, and a companion |
| function :func:`epics.ca.get_complete`. This section describes the details of |
| these. |
|
|
| If you're using :func:`epics.caget` or :func:`pv.get` you can supply a |
| timeout value. If the value returned is ``None``, then either the PV has |
| truly disconnected or the timeout passed before receiving the value. If |
| the *get* is incomplete, in that the PV is connected but the data has |
| simply not been received yet, a subsequent :func:`epics.caget` or |
| :func:`pv.get` will eventually complete and receive the value. That is, if |
| a PV for a large waveform record reports that it is connected, but a |
| :func:`pv.get` returns None, simply trying again later will probably work:: |
|
|
| >>> p = epics.PV('LargeWaveform') |
| >>> val = p.get() |
| >>> val |
| >>> time.sleep(10) |
| >>> val = p.get() |
|
|
|
|
| At the lowest level (which :func:`pv.get` and :func:`epics.caget` use), |
| :func:`epics.ca.get` issues a get-request with an internal callback function. |
| That is, it calls the CA library function |
| :func:`libca.ca_array_get_callback` with a pre-defined callback function. |
| With `wait=True` (the default), :func:`epics.ca.get` then waits up to the timeout |
| or until the CA library calls the specified callback function. If the |
| callback has been called, the value can then be converted and returned. |
|
|
| If the callback is not called in time or if `wait=False` is used but the PV |
| is connected, the callback will be called eventually, and simply waiting |
| (or using :func:`epics.ca.pend_event` if :data:`epics.ca.PREEMPTIVE_CALLBACK` is |
| ``False``) may be sufficient for the data to arrive. Under this condition, |
| you can call :func:`epics.ca.get_complete`, which will NOT issue a new request |
| for data to be sent, but wait (for up to a timeout time) for the previous |
| get request to complete. |
|
|
| :func:`epics.ca.get_complete` will return ``None`` if the timeout is exceeded or |
| if there is not an "incomplete get" that it can wait to complete. Thus, |
| you should use the return value from :func:`epics.ca.get_complete` with care. |
|
|
| Note that :func:`pv.get` (and so :func:`epics.caget`) will normally rely on |
| the PV value to be filled in automatically by monitor callbacks. If |
| monitor callbacks are disabled (as is done for large arrays and can be |
| turned off) or if the monitor hasn't been called yet, :func:`pv.get` will |
| check whether it should can :func:`epics.ca.get` or :func:`epics.ca.get_complete`. |
|
|
| If not specified, the timeout for :func:`epics.ca.get_complete` (and all other |
| get functions) will be set to:: |
| |
| timeout = 0.5 + log10(count) |
|
|
| Again, that's the maximum time that will be waited, and if the data is |
| received faster than that, the *get* will return as soon as it can. |
|
|
|
|
| .. _advanced-connecting-many-label: |
|
|
| Strategies for connecting to a large number of PVs |
| ==================================================== |
|
|
| Occasionally, you may find that you need to quickly connect to a large |
| number of PVs, say to write values to disk. The most straightforward way |
| to do this might be:: |
| |
| import epics |
|
|
| pvnamelist = read_list_pvs() |
| pv_vals = {} |
| for name in pvnamelist: |
| pv = epics.PV(name) |
| pv_vals[name] = pv.get() |
|
|
| or even just:: |
| |
| values = [epics.caget(name) for name in pvnamelist] |
|
|
|
|
| Though convenient, this does incur some performance penalty that you may |
| sometimes wish to avoid. To minimize the penalty, we need to understand its |
| cause. |
|
|
| Creating a `PV` object (using any of :class:`pv.PV`, or :func:`pv.get_pv`, or |
| :func:`epics.caget`) will automatically use connection and event callbacks in |
| an attempt to keep the `PV` alive and up-to-date during the seesion. This is |
| usually an advantage, as you don't need to explicitly deal with many aspects of |
| Channel Access. But creating a `PV` does request some network traffic, and the |
| `PV` will not be "fully connected" and ready to do a :meth:`PV.get` until all |
| the connection and event callbacks are established. In fact, :meth:`PV.get` |
| will not run until those connections are all established. For any individual |
| PV, this takes very close to 30 milliseconds for each PV. That is, for 1000 |
| PVs, the above approach will take about 30 seconds. |
|
|
| But that time to wait for PV connections does not need to be done one at a time |
| and in series. The simplest way to speed up the above task would allow all |
| those connections to happen in parallel and in the background by first creating |
| all the PVs and then getting their values. That would look like:: |
| |
| # improve time to get multiple PVs: Method 1 |
| import epics |
|
|
| pvnamelist = read_list_pvs() |
| pvs = [epics.PV(name) for name in pvnamelist] |
| values = [p.get() for p in pvs] |
|
|
| Though it doesn't look that different, this improves performance by a |
| factor of 100, so that getting 1000 PV values will take around 0.4 seconds. |
|
|
| Can it be improved further? The answer is Yes, but at a price. For the |
| discussion here, we'll call the original version "Method 0" and the method of |
| creating all the PVs then getting their values "Method 1". With both of these |
| approaches, the script has fully connected PV objects for all PVs named, so |
| that subsequent use of these PVs will be very efficient. |
|
|
| But this can be made even faster by turning off any connection or event |
| callbacks, avoiding `PV` objects altogether, and using the `epics.ca` |
| interface. This has been encapsulated into :func:`epics.caget_many` which |
| can be used as:: |
| |
| # get multiple PVs as fast as possible: Method 2 |
| import epics |
| pvnamelist = read_list_pvs() |
| values = epics.caget_many(pvlist) |
|
|
| In tests using 1000 PVs that were all really connected, Method 2 will take |
| about 0.25 seconds, compared to 0.4 seconds for Method 1 and 30 seconds for |
| Method 0. To understand what :func:`epics.caget_many` is doing, a more |
| complete version of this looks like this:: |
| |
| # epics.caget_many made explicit: Method 3 |
| from epics import ca |
|
|
| pvnamelist = read_list_pvs() |
|
|
| pvdata = {} |
| pvchids = [] |
| # create, don't connect or create callbacks |
| for name in pvnamelist: |
| chid = ca.create_channel(name, connect=False, auto_cb=False) # note 1 |
| pvchids.append(chid) |
|
|
| # connect |
| for chid in pvchids: |
| ca.connect_channel(chid) |
|
|
| # request get, but do not wait for result |
| ca.poll() |
| for chid in pvchids: |
| ca.get(chid, wait=False) # note 2 |
|
|
| # now wait for get() to complete |
| ca.poll() |
| for chid in pvchids: |
| val = ca.get_complete(data[0]) |
| pvdata[ca.name(chid)] = val |
|
|
| The code here probably needs detailed explanation. As mentioned above, it |
| uses the `ca` level, not `PV` objects. Second, the call to |
| :meth:`epics.ca.create_channel` (Note 1) uses `connect=False` and `auto_cb=False` |
| which mean to not wait for a connection before returning, and to not |
| automatically assign a connection callback. Normally, these are not what |
| you want, as you want a connected channel and to be informed if the |
| connection state changes, but we're aiming for maximum speed here. We then |
| use :meth:`epics.ca.connect_channel` to connect all the channels. Next (Note 2), |
| we tell the CA library to request the data for the channel without waiting |
| around to receive it. The main point of not having :meth:`epics.ca.get` wait for |
| the data for each channel as we go is that each data transfer takes time. |
| Instead we request data to be sent in a separate thread for all channels |
| without waiting. Then we do wait by calling :meth:`epics.ca.poll` once and only |
| once, (not `len(pvnamelist)` times!). Finally, we use the |
| :meth:`epics.ca.get_complete` method to convert the data that has now been |
| received by the companion thread to a python value. |
|
|
| Method 2 and 3 have essentially the same runtime, which is somewhat faster |
| than Method 1, and much faster than Method 0. Which method you should use |
| depends on use case. In fact, the test shown here only gets the PV values |
| once. If you're writing a script to get 1000 PVs, write them to disk, and |
| exit, then Method 2 (:func:`epics.caget_many`) may be exactly what you |
| want. But if your script will get 1000 PVs and stay alive doing other |
| work, or even if it runs a loop to get 1000 PVs and write them to disk once |
| a minute, then Method 1 will actually be faster. That is doing |
| :func:`epics.caget_many` in a loop, as with:: |
|
|
| # caget_many() 10 times |
| import epics |
| import time |
| pvnamelist = read_list_pvs() |
| for i in range(10): |
| values = epics.caget_many(pvlist) |
| time.sleep(0.01) |
|
|
| will take around considerably *longer* than creating the PVs once and |
| getting their values in a loop with:: |
| |
| # pv.get() 10 times |
| import epics |
| import time |
| pvnamelist = read_list_pvs() |
| pvs = [epics.PV(name) for name in pvnamelist] |
| for i in range(10): |
| values = [p.get() for p in pvs] |
| time.sleep(0.01) |
|
|
| In tests with 1000 PVs, looping with :func:`epics.caget_many` took about |
| 1.5 seconds, while the version looping over :meth:`PV.get()` took about 0.5 |
| seconds. |
|
|
| To be clear, it is **connecting** to Epics PVs that is expensive, not the |
| retreiving of data from connected PVs. You can lower the connection |
| expense by not retaining the connection or creating monitors on the PVs, |
| but if you are going to re-use the PVs, that savings will be lost quickly. |
| In short, use Method 1 over :func:`epics.caget_many` unless you've benchmarked |
| your use-case and have demonstrated that :func:`epics.caget_many` is better for |
| your needs. |
|
|
| .. _advanced-sleep-label: |
|
|
| time.sleep() or epics.poll()? |
| ================================ |
|
|
| In order for a program to communicate with Epics devices, it needs to allow |
| some time for this communication to happen. With |
| :data:`epics.ca.PREEMPTIVE_CALLBACK` set to ``True``, this communication will |
| be handled in a thread separate from the main Python thread. This means |
| that CA events can happen at any time, and :meth:`epics.ca.pend_event` does not |
| need to be called to explicitly allow for event processing. |
|
|
| Still, some time must be released from the main Python thread on occasion |
| in order for events to be processed. The simplest way to do this is with |
| :meth:`time.sleep`, so that an event loop can simply be:: |
|
|
| >>> while True: |
| >>> time.sleep(0.001) |
|
|
| Unfortunately, the :meth:`time.sleep` method is not a very high-resolution |
| clock, with typical resolutions of 1 to 10 ms, depending on the system. |
| Thus, even though events will be asynchronously generated and epics with |
| pre-emptive callbacks does not *require* :meth:`epics.ca.pend_event` or |
| :meth:`epics.ca.poll` to be run, better performance may be achieved with an event |
| loop of:: |
| |
| >>> while True: |
| >>> epics.poll(evt=1.e-5, iot=0.1) |
|
|
| as the loop will be run more often than using :meth:`time.sleep`. |
|
|
|
|
| .. index:: Threads |
| .. _advanced-threads-label: |
|
|
|
|
| Using Python Threads |
| ========================= |
|
|
| An important feature of the PyEpics package is that it can be used with |
| Python threads, as Epics 3.14 supports threads for client code. Even in |
| the best of cases, working with threads can be somewhat tricky and lead to |
| unexpected behavior, and the Channel Access library adds a small level of |
| complication for using CA with Python threads. The result is that some |
| precautions may be in order when using PyEpics and threads. This section |
| discusses the strategies for using threads with PyEpics. |
|
|
| First, to use threads with Channel Access, you must have |
| :data:`epics.ca.PREEMPTIVE_CALLBACK` = ``True``. This is the default |
| value, but if :data:`epics.ca.PREEMPTIVE_CALLBACK` has been set to |
| ``False``, threading will not work. |
|
|
| Second, if you are using :class:`PV` objects and not making heavy use of |
| the :mod:`epics.ca` module (that is, not making and passing around chids), then |
| the complications below are mostly hidden from you. If you're writing |
| threaded code, it's probably a good idea to read this just to understand |
| what the issues are. |
|
|
| Channel Access Contexts |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| The Channel Access library uses a concept of *contexts* for its own thread |
| model, with contexts holding sets of threads as well as Channels and |
| Process Variables. For non-threaded work, a process will use a single |
| context that is initialized prior doing any real CA work (done in |
| :meth:`epics.ca.initialize_libca`). In a threaded application, each new thread |
| begins with a new, uninitialized context that must be initialized or |
| replaced. Thus each new python thread that will interact with CA must |
| either explicitly create its own context with :meth:`epics.ca.create_context` |
| (and then, being a good citizen, destroy this context as the thread ends |
| with :meth:`epics.ca.destroy_context`) or attach to an existing context. |
|
|
| The generally recommended approach is to use a single CA context throughout |
| an entire process and have each thread attach to the first context created |
| (probably from the main thread). This avoids many potential pitfalls (and |
| crashes), and can be done fairly simply. It is the default mode when using |
| PV objects. |
|
|
| The most explicit use of contexts is to put :func:`epics.ca.create_context` |
| at the start of each function call as a thread target, and |
| :func:`epics.ca.destroy_context` at the end of each thread. This will |
| cause all the activity in that thread to be done in its own context. This |
| works, but means more care is needed, and so is not the recommended. |
|
|
|
|
| The best way to attach to the initially created context is to call |
| :meth:`epics.ca.use_initial_context` before any other CA calls in each |
| function that will be called by :meth:`Thread.run`. Equivalently, you can |
| add a :func:`withInitialContext` decorator to the function. Creating a PV |
| object will implicitly do this for you, as long as it is your first CA |
| action in the function. Each time you do a :meth:`PV.get` or |
| :meth:`PV.put` (or a few other methods), it will also check that the initial |
| context is being used. |
|
|
| Of course, this approach requires CA to be initialized already. Doing that |
| *in the main thread* is highly recommended. If it happens in a child |
| thread, that thread must exist for all CA work, so either the life of the |
| process or with great care for processes that do only some CA calls. If |
| you are writing a threaded application in which the first real CA calls are |
| inside a child thread, it is recommended that you initialize CA in the main |
| thread, |
|
|
| As a convenience, the :class:`CAThread` in the :mod:`epics.ca` module is |
| is a very thin wrapper around the standard :class:`threading.Thread` which |
| adding a call of :meth:`epics.ca.use_initial_context` just before your |
| threaded function is run. This allows your target functions to not |
| explicitly set the context, but still ensures that the initial context is |
| used in all functions. |
|
|
| How to work with CA and Threads |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| Summarizing the discussion above, to use threads you must use run in |
| PREEMPTIVE_CALLBACK mode. Furthermore, it is recommended that you use a |
| single context, and that you initialize CA in the main program thread so |
| that your single CA context belongs to the main thread. Using PV objects |
| exclusively makes this easy, but it can also be accomplished relatively |
| easily using the lower-level ca interface. The options for using threads |
| (in approximate order of reliability) are then: |
|
|
| 1. use PV objects for threading work. This ensures you're working in a |
| single CA context. |
|
|
| 2. use :class:`CAThread` instead of :class:`Thread` for threads that |
| will use CA calls. |
|
|
| 3. put :func:`epics.ca.use_initial_context` at the top of all |
| functions that might be a Thread target function, or decorate them with |
| :func:`withInitialContext` decorator, *@withInitialContext*. |
|
|
| 4. use :func:`epics.ca.create_context` at the top of all functions |
| that are inside a new thread, and be sure to put |
| :func:`epics.ca.destroy_context` at the end of the function. |
|
|
| 5. ignore this advise and hope for the best. If you're not creating |
| new PVs and only reading values of PVs created in the main thread |
| inside a child thread, you may not see a problems, at least not until |
| you try to do something fancier. |
|
|
|
|
| Thread Examples |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| This is a simplified version of test code using Python threads. It is |
| based on code originally from Friedrich Schotte, NIH, and included as |
| `thread_test.py` in the `tests` directory of the source distribution. |
|
|
| In this example, we define a `run_test` procedure which will create PVs |
| from a supplied list, and monitor these PVs, printing out the values when |
| they change. Two threads are created and run concurrently, with |
| overlapping PV lists, though one thread is run for a shorter time than the |
| other. |
|
|
| .. literalinclude:: examples/test_threading.py |
|
|
| In light of the long discussion above, a few remarks are in order: This |
| code uses the standard Thread library and explicitly calls |
| :func:`epics.ca.use_initial_context` prior to any CA calls in the target |
| function. Also note that the :func:`run_test` function is first called |
| from the main thread, so that the initial CA context does belong to the |
| main thread. Finally, the :func:`epics.ca.use_initial_context` call in |
| :func:`run_test` above could be replaced with |
| :func:`epics.ca.create_context`, and run OK. |
|
|
| The output from this will look like:: |
| |
| First, create a PV in the main thread: |
| Run 2 Background Threads simultaneously: |
| -> thread "A" will run for 3.000 sec, monitoring ['Py:ao1', 'Py:ai1', 'Py:long1'] |
| -> thread "B" will run for 6.000 sec, monitoring ['Py:ai1', 'Py:long1', 'Py:ao2'] |
| Py:ao1 = 8.3948 (A) |
| Py:ai1 = 3.14 (B) |
| Py:ai1 = 3.14 (A) |
| Py:ao1 = 0.7404 (A) |
| Py:ai1 = 4.07 (B) |
| Py:ai1 = 4.07 (A) |
| Py:long1 = 3 (B) |
| Py:long1 = 3 (A) |
| Py:ao1 = 13.0861 (A) |
| Py:ai1 = 8.49 (B) |
| Py:ai1 = 8.49 (A) |
| Py:ao2 = 30 (B) |
| Completed Thread A |
| Py:ai1 = 9.42 (B) |
| Py:ao2 = 30 (B) |
| Py:long1 = 4 (B) |
| Py:ai1 = 3.35 (B) |
| Py:ao2 = 31 (B) |
| Py:ai1 = 4.27 (B) |
| Py:ao2 = 31 (B) |
| Py:long1 = 5 (B) |
| Py:ai1 = 8.20 (B) |
| Py:ao2 = 31 (B) |
| Completed Thread B |
| Done |
|
|
| Note that while both threads *A* and *B* are running, a callback for the |
| PV `Py:ai1` is generated in each thread. |
|
|
| Note also that the callbacks for the PVs created in each thread are |
| **explicitly cleared** with:: |
| |
| [p.clear_callbacks() for p in pvs] |
|
|
| Without this, the callbacks for thread *A* will persist even after the |
| thread has completed! |
|
|
|
|
| .. index:: Multiprocessing |
| .. _advanced-multiprocessing-label: |
|
|
| Using Multiprocessing with PyEpics |
| =========================================== |
|
|
| An alternative to Python threads that has some very interesting and |
| important features is to use multiple *processes*, as with the standard |
| Python :mod:`multiprocessing` module. While using multiple processes has |
| some advantages over threads, it also has important implications for use |
| with PyEpics. The basic issue is that multiple processes need to be fully |
| separate, and do not share global state. For epics Channel Access, this |
| means that all those things like established communication channels, |
| callbacks, and Channel Access **context** cannot easily be share between |
| processes. |
|
|
| The solution is to use a :class:`CAProcess`, which acts just like |
| :class:`multiprocessing.Process`, but knows how to separate contexts |
| between processes. This means that you will have to create PV objects for |
| each process (even if they point to the same PV). |
|
|
| .. class:: CAProcess(group=None, target=None, name=None, args=(), kwargs={}) |
|
|
| a subclass of :class:`multiprocessing.Process` that clears the global |
| Channel Access context before running you target function in its own |
| process. |
|
|
| .. class:: CAPool(processes=None, initializer=None, initargs=(), maxtasksperchild=None) |
|
|
| a subclass of :class:`multiprocessing.pool.Pool`, creating a Pool of |
| :class:`CAProcess` instances. |
|
|
|
|
| A simple example of using multiprocessing successfully is given: |
|
|
| .. literalinclude:: examples/test_multiprocessing.py |
|
|
| here, the main process and the subprocess can each interact with the same |
| PV, though they need to create a separate connection (here, using :class:`PV`) |
| in each process. |
|
|
| Note that different :class:`CAProcess` instances can communicate via |
| standard :class:`multiprocessing.Queue`. At this writing, no testing has |
| been done on using multiprocessing Managers. |
|
|