One of the first hurdles that you can encounter when trying out asyncio is "asyncio eats all my memory!". Indeed, to keep your CPU busy, you're encouraged to launch a lot of coroutines simultaneously. Coroutines don't use a lot of memory by themselves, but what you're doing inside them can use quite a lot of memory.
I worked recently on an asynchronous crawler that runs in a Kubernetes cluster. As with all microservices that run in our cluster, I configured a memory limit (400Mib here). Even with rate limiting to play nice with external web sites, scheduling a few thousand coroutines that need to fetch a web page, parse it, and call two other microservices for normalization and storage means we're going to hit the memory limit fast. In the best case, your crawler gets killed, and can no longer work.
One work around is obviously to give more memory to my crawler. It would have worked in my case, but in the vast majority of situations, my crawler only used 200Mib. What I actually wanted to prevent are memory spikes, because there's no reason to burn a lot of memory for ten minutes if I'm going to be idle for one hour after that.
Now that we've understood the problem, what is the solution? Well, it's simply to limit the number of coroutines that are running simultaneously. How do you do that? That was not obvious to me. It turns out to be the classical concurrency solution: a semaphore!
Using a semaphore can seem a bit counter-untuitive. After all, we're using only a single thread, so trying to prevent multiple things to run at once can seem weird. But what you want to prevent is to start too many coroutines will others are running, so it does make sense.
Ok, how does it work?
provides two methods: an
acquire coroutine, and a release function.
The idea is to not start work unless you can acquire the semaphore,
and the semaphore limits the number of coroutines that can acquire it
simultaneously. Here's a simple example:
async def do_work(semaphore): await semaphore.acquire() print('start work') await asyncio.sleep(1) # optionally do a lot of work that will consume memory print('end work') semaphore.release()
Since we always want to acquire first and release last, we can use a context manager:
async def do_work(semaphore): async with semaphore: print('start work') await asyncio.sleep(1) # optionally do a lot of work that will consume memory print('end work')
It conveys our intent more clearly and prevents bugs. (Indeed,
decoupling acquire and release is only a recipe for failure
anyways.) To add
one more level of safety, we'll use a
BoundedSemaphore that ensures
that we can never call
release() more than
Let's see a full example now. We have this initial code:
import asyncio async def do_work(): print('start work') await asyncio.sleep(1) # optionally do a lot of work that will consume memory print('end work') async def main(): tasks =  for i in range(100): tasks.append(asyncio.ensure_future(do_work())) await asyncio.gather(*tasks) if __name__ == '__main__': loop = asyncio.get_event_loop() loop.set_debug(True) loop.run_until_complete(main())
If you want to only run ten
do_work() at a time, you now simply do
import asyncio async def do_work(semaphore): # new: only enter if semaphore can be acquired async with semaphore: print('start work') # optionally do a lot of work that will consume memory await asyncio.sleep(1) print('end work') async def main(): tasks =  # new: instantiate a semaphore before calling our coroutines semaphore = asyncio.BoundedSemaphore(10) for i in range(100): # new: pass the semaphore to the coroutine that will limit # itself tasks.append(asyncio.ensure_future(do_work(semaphore))) await asyncio.gather(*tasks) if __name__ == '__main__': loop = asyncio.get_event_loop() loop.set_debug(True) loop.run_until_complete(main())
And that's it! Even if we still start 100
do_work() coroutines at
once, only ten of them will actually work at the same time.
You may have one last question: how do you choose the semaphore initial counter value? That depends on the memory you are willing to use, the memory each coroutine uses and the memory that the rest of your code uses. While you could compute an optimal number, I found that trial and error works well here.
If you liked this post, you might like: