How to get the count of free/used processes/threads in a process Pool












0















We can send tasks to a process Pool.



Is there an easy way to ask the Pool how many of its workers are currently active with tasks?



I don't want to add a new task if all the processes are currently busy.



Perhaps I have to track this 'manually', by tracking calling .ready() on the results from apply_async in order to see which of the existing tasks have already completed. But I hope there is something simpler?










share|improve this question























  • Something unclear with my answer?

    – Darkonaut
    Jan 12 at 16:37
















0















We can send tasks to a process Pool.



Is there an easy way to ask the Pool how many of its workers are currently active with tasks?



I don't want to add a new task if all the processes are currently busy.



Perhaps I have to track this 'manually', by tracking calling .ready() on the results from apply_async in order to see which of the existing tasks have already completed. But I hope there is something simpler?










share|improve this question























  • Something unclear with my answer?

    – Darkonaut
    Jan 12 at 16:37














0












0








0








We can send tasks to a process Pool.



Is there an easy way to ask the Pool how many of its workers are currently active with tasks?



I don't want to add a new task if all the processes are currently busy.



Perhaps I have to track this 'manually', by tracking calling .ready() on the results from apply_async in order to see which of the existing tasks have already completed. But I hope there is something simpler?










share|improve this question














We can send tasks to a process Pool.



Is there an easy way to ask the Pool how many of its workers are currently active with tasks?



I don't want to add a new task if all the processes are currently busy.



Perhaps I have to track this 'manually', by tracking calling .ready() on the results from apply_async in order to see which of the existing tasks have already completed. But I hope there is something simpler?







python multiprocessing






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 20 '18 at 6:34









Aaron McDaidAaron McDaid

19.2k54875




19.2k54875













  • Something unclear with my answer?

    – Darkonaut
    Jan 12 at 16:37



















  • Something unclear with my answer?

    – Darkonaut
    Jan 12 at 16:37

















Something unclear with my answer?

– Darkonaut
Jan 12 at 16:37





Something unclear with my answer?

– Darkonaut
Jan 12 at 16:37












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0














There's no build-in way if that's your question. A worker idling just blocks at task = get(). get() here is the corresponding method of either a multiprocessing.SimpleQueue, in case your pool is a process-pool, or of a queue.Queue, in case you use multiprocessing.dummy.Pool aka multiprocessing.pool.ThreadPool. There's no internal bookkeeping about the number of idling workers, it's just .get() and .put() on queues what triggers distribution of tasks and fetching of results.





You can however, get the count of outstanding tasks when you check the length of the internal pool._cache. After a processed tasks returns from a worker, the entry (ApplyResult-instance) there gets deleted. So when you evaluate max(pool._processes - len(pool._cache), 0) you would get a number of idling workers. The actual value is not reliable, though. Pool uses three threads for managing its internals...



I built an example which didn't break in testing, but I don't consider it safe to use, although the only danger here would be that a task might be submitted too early. It would also include some time.sleep() to prevent busy-waiting, but that's always inefficient, because it doesn't (just) unblock as soon there is actually something to do.





Instead, if you insist on using multiprocessing.Pool, you could do something like the example below shows. I'm using a collections.deque here as a structure for tasks and results to append() on the right end and popping from the left end. deque is optimized for such operations and also used to implement queue.Queue.



from datetime import datetime
from collections import deque
from multiprocessing import Pool


def busy_foo(x):
for _ in range(int(x)):
1 - 1
print(x)
return x


if __name__ == '__main__':

N_WORKERS = 4

tasks = deque(
[(busy_foo, (i,)) for i in range(int(150e6), int(150e6 + 10))]
)

pool = Pool(N_WORKERS)

print(f'{datetime.now()}: Initial distribution of {N_WORKERS} tasks.')
async_results = deque(
[pool.apply_async(*tasks.popleft()) for _ in range(N_WORKERS)]
)

fetched_results =
while tasks: # while still undistributed (non-popped) tasks left
print(f'{datetime.now()}: Waiting for async_result.')
# `.get()` blocks until result available
fetched_results.append(async_results.popleft().get())
print(f'{datetime.now()}: Submitting next task.')
async_results.append(pool.apply_async(*tasks.popleft()))
print(f'{datetime.now()}: All tasks submitted.')

while async_results: # get rest of outstanding results
print(f'{datetime.now()}: Waiting for async_result.')
fetched_results.append(async_results.popleft().get())

pool.close()
pool.join()
print('n', fetched_results)


What happens is that you, in a first round, distribute as much tasks as much workers you have in your pool. Then you while-loop over the remaining tasks and block-wait on the async-results. Whenever a result is finished, you pop the next task from the tasks-deque and submit it into the pool. When all tasks are submitted, you just await the remaining async_results in a second loop.



Output from this example looks like this:



2018-11-20 20:21:55.430073: Initial distribution of 4 tasks.
2018-11-20 20:21:55.430166: Waiting for async_result.
150000000
2018-11-20 20:22:12.306330: Submitting next task.
2018-11-20 20:22:12.306414: Waiting for async_result.
150000002
150000003
150000001
2018-11-20 20:22:17.715737: Submitting next task.
2018-11-20 20:22:17.715876: Waiting for async_result.
2018-11-20 20:22:17.715922: Submitting next task.
2018-11-20 20:22:17.726139: Waiting for async_result.
2018-11-20 20:22:17.726201: Submitting next task.
2018-11-20 20:22:17.726263: Waiting for async_result.
150000004
2018-11-20 20:22:32.358946: Submitting next task.
2018-11-20 20:22:32.359040: Waiting for async_result.
150000007
150000005
2018-11-20 20:22:37.984947: Submitting next task.
2018-11-20 20:22:37.990142: All tasks submitted.
2018-11-20 20:22:37.990173: Waiting for async_result.
150000006
2018-11-20 20:22:38.783913: Waiting for async_result.
2018-11-20 20:22:38.783988: Waiting for async_result.
150000008
2018-11-20 20:22:46.364376: Waiting for async_result.
150000009

[150000000, 150000001, 150000002, 150000003, 150000004, 150000005, 150000006, 150000007, 150000008, 150000009]

Process finished with exit code 0





share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53387493%2fhow-to-get-the-count-of-free-used-processes-threads-in-a-process-pool%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0














    There's no build-in way if that's your question. A worker idling just blocks at task = get(). get() here is the corresponding method of either a multiprocessing.SimpleQueue, in case your pool is a process-pool, or of a queue.Queue, in case you use multiprocessing.dummy.Pool aka multiprocessing.pool.ThreadPool. There's no internal bookkeeping about the number of idling workers, it's just .get() and .put() on queues what triggers distribution of tasks and fetching of results.





    You can however, get the count of outstanding tasks when you check the length of the internal pool._cache. After a processed tasks returns from a worker, the entry (ApplyResult-instance) there gets deleted. So when you evaluate max(pool._processes - len(pool._cache), 0) you would get a number of idling workers. The actual value is not reliable, though. Pool uses three threads for managing its internals...



    I built an example which didn't break in testing, but I don't consider it safe to use, although the only danger here would be that a task might be submitted too early. It would also include some time.sleep() to prevent busy-waiting, but that's always inefficient, because it doesn't (just) unblock as soon there is actually something to do.





    Instead, if you insist on using multiprocessing.Pool, you could do something like the example below shows. I'm using a collections.deque here as a structure for tasks and results to append() on the right end and popping from the left end. deque is optimized for such operations and also used to implement queue.Queue.



    from datetime import datetime
    from collections import deque
    from multiprocessing import Pool


    def busy_foo(x):
    for _ in range(int(x)):
    1 - 1
    print(x)
    return x


    if __name__ == '__main__':

    N_WORKERS = 4

    tasks = deque(
    [(busy_foo, (i,)) for i in range(int(150e6), int(150e6 + 10))]
    )

    pool = Pool(N_WORKERS)

    print(f'{datetime.now()}: Initial distribution of {N_WORKERS} tasks.')
    async_results = deque(
    [pool.apply_async(*tasks.popleft()) for _ in range(N_WORKERS)]
    )

    fetched_results =
    while tasks: # while still undistributed (non-popped) tasks left
    print(f'{datetime.now()}: Waiting for async_result.')
    # `.get()` blocks until result available
    fetched_results.append(async_results.popleft().get())
    print(f'{datetime.now()}: Submitting next task.')
    async_results.append(pool.apply_async(*tasks.popleft()))
    print(f'{datetime.now()}: All tasks submitted.')

    while async_results: # get rest of outstanding results
    print(f'{datetime.now()}: Waiting for async_result.')
    fetched_results.append(async_results.popleft().get())

    pool.close()
    pool.join()
    print('n', fetched_results)


    What happens is that you, in a first round, distribute as much tasks as much workers you have in your pool. Then you while-loop over the remaining tasks and block-wait on the async-results. Whenever a result is finished, you pop the next task from the tasks-deque and submit it into the pool. When all tasks are submitted, you just await the remaining async_results in a second loop.



    Output from this example looks like this:



    2018-11-20 20:21:55.430073: Initial distribution of 4 tasks.
    2018-11-20 20:21:55.430166: Waiting for async_result.
    150000000
    2018-11-20 20:22:12.306330: Submitting next task.
    2018-11-20 20:22:12.306414: Waiting for async_result.
    150000002
    150000003
    150000001
    2018-11-20 20:22:17.715737: Submitting next task.
    2018-11-20 20:22:17.715876: Waiting for async_result.
    2018-11-20 20:22:17.715922: Submitting next task.
    2018-11-20 20:22:17.726139: Waiting for async_result.
    2018-11-20 20:22:17.726201: Submitting next task.
    2018-11-20 20:22:17.726263: Waiting for async_result.
    150000004
    2018-11-20 20:22:32.358946: Submitting next task.
    2018-11-20 20:22:32.359040: Waiting for async_result.
    150000007
    150000005
    2018-11-20 20:22:37.984947: Submitting next task.
    2018-11-20 20:22:37.990142: All tasks submitted.
    2018-11-20 20:22:37.990173: Waiting for async_result.
    150000006
    2018-11-20 20:22:38.783913: Waiting for async_result.
    2018-11-20 20:22:38.783988: Waiting for async_result.
    150000008
    2018-11-20 20:22:46.364376: Waiting for async_result.
    150000009

    [150000000, 150000001, 150000002, 150000003, 150000004, 150000005, 150000006, 150000007, 150000008, 150000009]

    Process finished with exit code 0





    share|improve this answer






























      0














      There's no build-in way if that's your question. A worker idling just blocks at task = get(). get() here is the corresponding method of either a multiprocessing.SimpleQueue, in case your pool is a process-pool, or of a queue.Queue, in case you use multiprocessing.dummy.Pool aka multiprocessing.pool.ThreadPool. There's no internal bookkeeping about the number of idling workers, it's just .get() and .put() on queues what triggers distribution of tasks and fetching of results.





      You can however, get the count of outstanding tasks when you check the length of the internal pool._cache. After a processed tasks returns from a worker, the entry (ApplyResult-instance) there gets deleted. So when you evaluate max(pool._processes - len(pool._cache), 0) you would get a number of idling workers. The actual value is not reliable, though. Pool uses three threads for managing its internals...



      I built an example which didn't break in testing, but I don't consider it safe to use, although the only danger here would be that a task might be submitted too early. It would also include some time.sleep() to prevent busy-waiting, but that's always inefficient, because it doesn't (just) unblock as soon there is actually something to do.





      Instead, if you insist on using multiprocessing.Pool, you could do something like the example below shows. I'm using a collections.deque here as a structure for tasks and results to append() on the right end and popping from the left end. deque is optimized for such operations and also used to implement queue.Queue.



      from datetime import datetime
      from collections import deque
      from multiprocessing import Pool


      def busy_foo(x):
      for _ in range(int(x)):
      1 - 1
      print(x)
      return x


      if __name__ == '__main__':

      N_WORKERS = 4

      tasks = deque(
      [(busy_foo, (i,)) for i in range(int(150e6), int(150e6 + 10))]
      )

      pool = Pool(N_WORKERS)

      print(f'{datetime.now()}: Initial distribution of {N_WORKERS} tasks.')
      async_results = deque(
      [pool.apply_async(*tasks.popleft()) for _ in range(N_WORKERS)]
      )

      fetched_results =
      while tasks: # while still undistributed (non-popped) tasks left
      print(f'{datetime.now()}: Waiting for async_result.')
      # `.get()` blocks until result available
      fetched_results.append(async_results.popleft().get())
      print(f'{datetime.now()}: Submitting next task.')
      async_results.append(pool.apply_async(*tasks.popleft()))
      print(f'{datetime.now()}: All tasks submitted.')

      while async_results: # get rest of outstanding results
      print(f'{datetime.now()}: Waiting for async_result.')
      fetched_results.append(async_results.popleft().get())

      pool.close()
      pool.join()
      print('n', fetched_results)


      What happens is that you, in a first round, distribute as much tasks as much workers you have in your pool. Then you while-loop over the remaining tasks and block-wait on the async-results. Whenever a result is finished, you pop the next task from the tasks-deque and submit it into the pool. When all tasks are submitted, you just await the remaining async_results in a second loop.



      Output from this example looks like this:



      2018-11-20 20:21:55.430073: Initial distribution of 4 tasks.
      2018-11-20 20:21:55.430166: Waiting for async_result.
      150000000
      2018-11-20 20:22:12.306330: Submitting next task.
      2018-11-20 20:22:12.306414: Waiting for async_result.
      150000002
      150000003
      150000001
      2018-11-20 20:22:17.715737: Submitting next task.
      2018-11-20 20:22:17.715876: Waiting for async_result.
      2018-11-20 20:22:17.715922: Submitting next task.
      2018-11-20 20:22:17.726139: Waiting for async_result.
      2018-11-20 20:22:17.726201: Submitting next task.
      2018-11-20 20:22:17.726263: Waiting for async_result.
      150000004
      2018-11-20 20:22:32.358946: Submitting next task.
      2018-11-20 20:22:32.359040: Waiting for async_result.
      150000007
      150000005
      2018-11-20 20:22:37.984947: Submitting next task.
      2018-11-20 20:22:37.990142: All tasks submitted.
      2018-11-20 20:22:37.990173: Waiting for async_result.
      150000006
      2018-11-20 20:22:38.783913: Waiting for async_result.
      2018-11-20 20:22:38.783988: Waiting for async_result.
      150000008
      2018-11-20 20:22:46.364376: Waiting for async_result.
      150000009

      [150000000, 150000001, 150000002, 150000003, 150000004, 150000005, 150000006, 150000007, 150000008, 150000009]

      Process finished with exit code 0





      share|improve this answer




























        0












        0








        0







        There's no build-in way if that's your question. A worker idling just blocks at task = get(). get() here is the corresponding method of either a multiprocessing.SimpleQueue, in case your pool is a process-pool, or of a queue.Queue, in case you use multiprocessing.dummy.Pool aka multiprocessing.pool.ThreadPool. There's no internal bookkeeping about the number of idling workers, it's just .get() and .put() on queues what triggers distribution of tasks and fetching of results.





        You can however, get the count of outstanding tasks when you check the length of the internal pool._cache. After a processed tasks returns from a worker, the entry (ApplyResult-instance) there gets deleted. So when you evaluate max(pool._processes - len(pool._cache), 0) you would get a number of idling workers. The actual value is not reliable, though. Pool uses three threads for managing its internals...



        I built an example which didn't break in testing, but I don't consider it safe to use, although the only danger here would be that a task might be submitted too early. It would also include some time.sleep() to prevent busy-waiting, but that's always inefficient, because it doesn't (just) unblock as soon there is actually something to do.





        Instead, if you insist on using multiprocessing.Pool, you could do something like the example below shows. I'm using a collections.deque here as a structure for tasks and results to append() on the right end and popping from the left end. deque is optimized for such operations and also used to implement queue.Queue.



        from datetime import datetime
        from collections import deque
        from multiprocessing import Pool


        def busy_foo(x):
        for _ in range(int(x)):
        1 - 1
        print(x)
        return x


        if __name__ == '__main__':

        N_WORKERS = 4

        tasks = deque(
        [(busy_foo, (i,)) for i in range(int(150e6), int(150e6 + 10))]
        )

        pool = Pool(N_WORKERS)

        print(f'{datetime.now()}: Initial distribution of {N_WORKERS} tasks.')
        async_results = deque(
        [pool.apply_async(*tasks.popleft()) for _ in range(N_WORKERS)]
        )

        fetched_results =
        while tasks: # while still undistributed (non-popped) tasks left
        print(f'{datetime.now()}: Waiting for async_result.')
        # `.get()` blocks until result available
        fetched_results.append(async_results.popleft().get())
        print(f'{datetime.now()}: Submitting next task.')
        async_results.append(pool.apply_async(*tasks.popleft()))
        print(f'{datetime.now()}: All tasks submitted.')

        while async_results: # get rest of outstanding results
        print(f'{datetime.now()}: Waiting for async_result.')
        fetched_results.append(async_results.popleft().get())

        pool.close()
        pool.join()
        print('n', fetched_results)


        What happens is that you, in a first round, distribute as much tasks as much workers you have in your pool. Then you while-loop over the remaining tasks and block-wait on the async-results. Whenever a result is finished, you pop the next task from the tasks-deque and submit it into the pool. When all tasks are submitted, you just await the remaining async_results in a second loop.



        Output from this example looks like this:



        2018-11-20 20:21:55.430073: Initial distribution of 4 tasks.
        2018-11-20 20:21:55.430166: Waiting for async_result.
        150000000
        2018-11-20 20:22:12.306330: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:12.306414: Waiting for async_result.
        150000002
        150000003
        150000001
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.715737: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.715876: Waiting for async_result.
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.715922: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.726139: Waiting for async_result.
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.726201: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.726263: Waiting for async_result.
        150000004
        2018-11-20 20:22:32.358946: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:32.359040: Waiting for async_result.
        150000007
        150000005
        2018-11-20 20:22:37.984947: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:37.990142: All tasks submitted.
        2018-11-20 20:22:37.990173: Waiting for async_result.
        150000006
        2018-11-20 20:22:38.783913: Waiting for async_result.
        2018-11-20 20:22:38.783988: Waiting for async_result.
        150000008
        2018-11-20 20:22:46.364376: Waiting for async_result.
        150000009

        [150000000, 150000001, 150000002, 150000003, 150000004, 150000005, 150000006, 150000007, 150000008, 150000009]

        Process finished with exit code 0





        share|improve this answer















        There's no build-in way if that's your question. A worker idling just blocks at task = get(). get() here is the corresponding method of either a multiprocessing.SimpleQueue, in case your pool is a process-pool, or of a queue.Queue, in case you use multiprocessing.dummy.Pool aka multiprocessing.pool.ThreadPool. There's no internal bookkeeping about the number of idling workers, it's just .get() and .put() on queues what triggers distribution of tasks and fetching of results.





        You can however, get the count of outstanding tasks when you check the length of the internal pool._cache. After a processed tasks returns from a worker, the entry (ApplyResult-instance) there gets deleted. So when you evaluate max(pool._processes - len(pool._cache), 0) you would get a number of idling workers. The actual value is not reliable, though. Pool uses three threads for managing its internals...



        I built an example which didn't break in testing, but I don't consider it safe to use, although the only danger here would be that a task might be submitted too early. It would also include some time.sleep() to prevent busy-waiting, but that's always inefficient, because it doesn't (just) unblock as soon there is actually something to do.





        Instead, if you insist on using multiprocessing.Pool, you could do something like the example below shows. I'm using a collections.deque here as a structure for tasks and results to append() on the right end and popping from the left end. deque is optimized for such operations and also used to implement queue.Queue.



        from datetime import datetime
        from collections import deque
        from multiprocessing import Pool


        def busy_foo(x):
        for _ in range(int(x)):
        1 - 1
        print(x)
        return x


        if __name__ == '__main__':

        N_WORKERS = 4

        tasks = deque(
        [(busy_foo, (i,)) for i in range(int(150e6), int(150e6 + 10))]
        )

        pool = Pool(N_WORKERS)

        print(f'{datetime.now()}: Initial distribution of {N_WORKERS} tasks.')
        async_results = deque(
        [pool.apply_async(*tasks.popleft()) for _ in range(N_WORKERS)]
        )

        fetched_results =
        while tasks: # while still undistributed (non-popped) tasks left
        print(f'{datetime.now()}: Waiting for async_result.')
        # `.get()` blocks until result available
        fetched_results.append(async_results.popleft().get())
        print(f'{datetime.now()}: Submitting next task.')
        async_results.append(pool.apply_async(*tasks.popleft()))
        print(f'{datetime.now()}: All tasks submitted.')

        while async_results: # get rest of outstanding results
        print(f'{datetime.now()}: Waiting for async_result.')
        fetched_results.append(async_results.popleft().get())

        pool.close()
        pool.join()
        print('n', fetched_results)


        What happens is that you, in a first round, distribute as much tasks as much workers you have in your pool. Then you while-loop over the remaining tasks and block-wait on the async-results. Whenever a result is finished, you pop the next task from the tasks-deque and submit it into the pool. When all tasks are submitted, you just await the remaining async_results in a second loop.



        Output from this example looks like this:



        2018-11-20 20:21:55.430073: Initial distribution of 4 tasks.
        2018-11-20 20:21:55.430166: Waiting for async_result.
        150000000
        2018-11-20 20:22:12.306330: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:12.306414: Waiting for async_result.
        150000002
        150000003
        150000001
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.715737: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.715876: Waiting for async_result.
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.715922: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.726139: Waiting for async_result.
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.726201: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:17.726263: Waiting for async_result.
        150000004
        2018-11-20 20:22:32.358946: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:32.359040: Waiting for async_result.
        150000007
        150000005
        2018-11-20 20:22:37.984947: Submitting next task.
        2018-11-20 20:22:37.990142: All tasks submitted.
        2018-11-20 20:22:37.990173: Waiting for async_result.
        150000006
        2018-11-20 20:22:38.783913: Waiting for async_result.
        2018-11-20 20:22:38.783988: Waiting for async_result.
        150000008
        2018-11-20 20:22:46.364376: Waiting for async_result.
        150000009

        [150000000, 150000001, 150000002, 150000003, 150000004, 150000005, 150000006, 150000007, 150000008, 150000009]

        Process finished with exit code 0






        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Nov 20 '18 at 22:04

























        answered Nov 20 '18 at 19:43









        DarkonautDarkonaut

        3,2422821




        3,2422821
































            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53387493%2fhow-to-get-the-count-of-free-used-processes-threads-in-a-process-pool%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

            Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

            Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents