Let's say I properly use async-await, like
await client.GetStringAsync("http://stackoverflow.com");
I understand that the thread that invokes the await becomes "free", that is, something further up the call chain isn't stuck executing some loop equivalent to
bool done = false;
string html = null;
for(; !done; done = GetStringIfAvailable(ref html));
which is what it would be doing if I called the synchronous version of GetStringAsync (probably called GetString by convention).
However, here's where I get confused. Even if the calling thread or any other thread in application's pool of available threads isn't blocked with such a loop, then something is, because, as I understand, at a low level there is always polling going on. So, instead of lowering the total amount of work, I'm simply pushing work to something "beneath" my application's threads ... or something like that.
Can someone clear this up for me?
No.
The compiler will convert methods that use async / await in to state machines that can be broken up in to multiple steps. Once an await is hit, the state of the method is stored and execution is "offloaded" back to the thread that called it. If the task is waiting on things like disk IO, the OS kernel will end up relying on physical CPU interrupts to let the kernel know when to signal the application to resume processing. The state of the pending method is loaded, and queued up on an available thread (the same thread that hit the await if ConfigureAwait is true, or any free thread if false) (This last part isn't exactly right, please see Scott Chamberlain's comments below.). Think of it like an event, where the application asks the hardware to "ping" it once the work is done, while the application gets back to doing whatever it was doing before.
There are some cases where a new thread is spun up to do the work, such as Task.Run which does the work on a ThreadPool thread, but no thread is blocking while awaiting it to complete.
It is important to keep in mind that asynchronous operations using async/ await, are all about pausing, storing, retrieving, and resuming that state-machine. It doesn't really care about what happens inside the Task, what happens there, and how it happens, isn't directly related to async / await.
I was very confused by async / await too, until I really understood how the method is converted to a state-machine. Reading up on exactly what your async methods get converted to by the compiler might help.
You're pushing it off onto the operating system--which will run some other thread if it can rather than simply wait. It only ends up in a busy-wait when it can't find any thread that wants to run.
I was reading up on async/await and when Task.Yield might be useful and came across this post. I had a question regarding the below from that post:
When you use async/await, there is no guarantee that the method you
call when you do await FooAsync() will actually run asynchronously.
The internal implementation is free to return using a completely
synchronous path.
This is a little unclear to me probably because the definition of asynchronous in my head is not lining up.
In my mind, since I do mainly UI dev, async code is code that does not run on the UI thread, but on some other thread. I guess in the text I quoted, a method is not truly async if it blocks on any thread (even if it's a thread pool thread for example).
Question:
If I have a long running task that is CPU bound (let's say it is doing a lot of hard math), then running that task asynchronously must be blocking some thread right? Something has to actually do the math. If I await it then some thread is getting blocked.
What is an example of a truly asynchronous method and how would they actually work? Are those limited to I/O operations which take advantage of some hardware capabilities so no thread is ever blocked?
This is a little unclear to me probably because the definition of asynchronous in my head is not lining up.
Good on you for asking for clarification.
In my mind, since I do mainly UI dev, async code is code that does not run on the UI thread, but on some other thread.
That belief is common but false. There is no requirement that asynchronous code run on any second thread.
Imagine that you are cooking breakfast. You put some toast in the toaster, and while you are waiting for the toast to pop, you go through your mail from yesterday, pay some bills, and hey, the toast popped up. You finish paying that bill and then go butter your toast.
Where in there did you hire a second worker to watch your toaster?
You didn't. Threads are workers. Asynchronous workflows can happen all on one thread. The point of the asynchronous workflow is to avoid hiring more workers if you can possibly avoid it.
If I have a long running task that is CPU bound (let's say it is doing a lot of hard math), then running that task asynchronously must be blocking some thread right? Something has to actually do the math.
Here, I'll give you a hard problem to solve. Here's a column of 100 numbers; please add them up by hand. So you add the first to the second and make a total. Then you add the running total to the third and get a total. Then, oh, hell, the second page of numbers is missing. Remember where you were, and go make some toast. Oh, while the toast was toasting, a letter arrived with the remaining numbers. When you're done buttering the toast, go keep on adding up those numbers, and remember to eat the toast the next time you have a free moment.
Where is the part where you hired another worker to add the numbers? Computationally expensive work need not be synchronous, and need not block a thread. The thing that makes computational work potentially asynchronous is the ability to stop it, remember where you were, go do something else, remember what to do after that, and resume where you left off.
Now it is certainly possible to hire a second worker who does nothing but add numbers, and then is fired. And you could ask that worker "are you done?" and if the answer is no, you could go make a sandwich until they are done. That way both you and the worker are busy. But there is not a requirement that asynchrony involve multiple workers.
If I await it then some thread is getting blocked.
NO NO NO. This is the most important part of your misunderstanding. await does not mean "go start this job asynchronously". await means "I have an asynchronously produced result here that might not be available. If it is not available, find some other work to do on this thread so that we are not blocking the thread. Await is the opposite of what you just said.
What is an example of a truly asynchronous method and how would they actually work? Are those limited to I/O operations which take advantage of some hardware capabilities so no thread is ever blocked?
Asynchronous work often involves custom hardware or multiple threads, but it need not.
Don't think about workers. Think about workflows. The essence of asynchrony is breaking up workflows into little parts such that you can determine the order in which those parts must happen, and then executing each part in turn, but allowing parts that do not have dependencies with each other to be interleaved.
In an asynchronous workflow you can easily detect places in the workflow where a dependency between parts is expressed. Such parts are marked with await. That's the meaning of await: the code which follows depends upon this portion of the workflow being completed, so if it is not completed, go find some other task to do, and come back here later when the task is completed. The whole point is to keep the worker working, even in a world where needed results are being produced in the future.
I was reading up on async/await
May I recommend my async intro?
and when Task.Yield might be useful
Almost never. I find it occasionally useful when doing unit testing.
In my mind, since I do mainly UI dev, async code is code that does not run on the UI thread, but on some other thread.
Asynchronous code can be threadless.
I guess in the text I quoted, a method is not truly async if it blocks on any thread (even if it's a thread pool thread for example).
I would say that's correct. I use the term "truly async" for operations that do not block any threads (and that are not synchronous). I also use the term "fake async" for operations that appear asynchronous but only work that way because they run on or block a thread pool thread.
If I have a long running task that is CPU bound (let's say it is doing a lot of hard math), then running that task asynchronously must be blocking some thread right? Something has to actually do the math.
Yes; in this case, you would want to define that work with a synchronous API (since it is synchronous work), and then you can call it from your UI thread using Task.Run, e.g.:
var result = await Task.Run(() => MySynchronousCpuBoundCode());
If I await it then some thread is getting blocked.
No; the thread pool thread would be used to run the code (not actually blocked), and the UI thread is asynchronously waiting for that code to complete (also not blocked).
What is an example of a truly asynchronous method and how would they actually work?
NetworkStream.WriteAsync (indirectly) asks the network card to write out some bytes. There is no thread responsible for writing out the bytes one at a time and waiting for each byte to be written. The network card handles all of that. When the network card is done writing all the bytes, it (eventually) completes the task returned from WriteAsync.
Are those limited to I/O operations which take advantage of some hardware capabilities so no thread is ever blocked?
Not entirely, although I/O operations are the easy examples. Another fairly easy example is timers (e.g., Task.Delay). Though you can build a truly asynchronous API around any kind of "event".
When you use async/await, there is no guarantee that the method you call when you do await FooAsync() will actually run asynchronously. The internal implementation is free to return using a completely synchronous path.
This is a little unclear to me probably because the definition of
asynchronous in my head is not lining up.
This simply means there are two cases when calling an async method.
The first is that, upon returning the task to you, the operation is already completed -- this would be a synchronous path. The second is that the operation is still in progress -- this is the async path.
Consider this code, which should show both of these paths. If the key is in a cache, it is returned synchronously. Otherwise, an async op is started which calls out to a database:
Task<T> GetCachedDataAsync(string key)
{
if(cache.TryGetvalue(key, out T value))
{
return Task.FromResult(value); // synchronous: no awaits here.
}
// start a fully async op.
return GetDataImpl();
async Task<T> GetDataImpl()
{
value = await database.GetValueAsync(key);
cache[key] = value;
return value;
}
}
So by understanding that, you can deduce that in theory the call of database.GetValueAsync() may have a similar code and itself be able to return synchronously: so even your async path may end up running 100% synchronously. But your code doesn't need to care: async/await handles both cases seamlessly.
If I have a long running task that is CPU bound (let's say it is doing a lot of hard math), then running that task asynchronously must be blocking some thread right? Something has to actually do the math. If I await it then some thread is getting blocked.
Blocking is a well-defined term -- it means your thread has yielded its execution window while it waits for something (I/O, mutex, and so on). So your thread doing the math is not considered blocked: it is actually performing work.
What is an example of a truly asynchronous method and how would they actually work? Are those limited to I/O operations which take advantage of some hardware capabilities so no thread is ever blocked?
A "truly async method" would be one that simply never blocks. It typically ends up involving I/O, but it can also mean awaiting your heavy math code when you want to your current thread for something else (as in UI development) or when you're trying to introduce parallelism:
async Task<double> DoSomethingAsync()
{
double x = await ReadXFromFile();
Task<double> a = LongMathCodeA(x);
Task<double> b = LongMathCodeB(x);
await Task.WhenAll(a, b);
return a.Result + b.Result;
}
This topic is fairly vast and several discussions may arise. However, using async and await in C# is considered asynchronous programming. However, how asynchrony works is a total different discussion. Until .NET 4.5 there were no async and await keywords, and developers had to develop directly against the Task Parallel Library (TPL). There the developer had full control on when and how to create new tasks and even threads. However, this had a downside since not being really an expert on this topic, applications could suffer from heavy performance problems and bugs due to race conditions between threads and so on.
Starting with .NET 4.5 the async and await keywords were introduced, with a new approach to asynchronous programming. The async and await keywords don't cause additional threads to be created. Async methods don't require multithreading because an async method doesn't run on its own thread. The method runs on the current synchronization context and uses time on the thread only when the method is active. You can use Task.Run to move CPU-bound work to a background thread, but a background thread doesn't help with a process that's just waiting for results to become available.
The async-based approach to asynchronous programming is preferable to existing approaches in almost every case. In particular, this approach is better than BackgroundWorker for IO-bound operations because the code is simpler and you don't have to guard against race conditions. You can read more about this topic HERE.
I don't consider myself a C# black belt and some more experienced developers may raise some further discussions, but as a principle I hope that I managed to answer your question.
Asynchronous does not imply Parallel
Asynchronous only implies concurrency. In fact, even using explicit threads doesn't guarantee that they will execute simultaneously (for example when the threads affinity for the same single core, or more commonly when there is only one core in the machine to begin with).
Therefore, you should not expect an asynchronous operation to happen simultaneously to something else. Asynchronous only means that it will happen, eventually at another time (a(greek) = without, syn (greek) = together, khronos (greek) = time. => Asynchronous = not happening at the same time).
Note: The idea of asynchronicity is that on the invocation you do not care when the code will actually run. This allows the system to take advantage of parallelism, if possible, to execute the operation. It may even run immediately. It could even happen on the same thread... more on that later.
When you await the asynchronous operation, you are creating concurrency (com (latin) = together, currere (latin) = run. => "Concurrent" = to run together). That is because you are asking for the asynchronous operation to reach completion before moving on. We can say the execution converges. This is similar to the concept of joining threads.
When asynchronous cannot be Parallel
When you use async/await, there is no guarantee that the method you call when you do await FooAsync() will actually run asynchronously. The internal implementation is free to return using a completely synchronous path.
This can happen in three ways:
It is possible to use await on anything that returns Task. When you receive the Task it could have already been completed.
Yet, that alone does not imply it ran synchronously. In fact, it suggest it ran asynchronously and finished before you got the Task instance.
Keep in mind that you can await on an already completed task:
private static async Task CallFooAsync()
{
await FooAsync();
}
private static Task FooAsync()
{
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
private static void Main()
{
CallFooAsync().Wait();
}
Also, if an async method has no await it will run synchronously.
Note: As you already know, a method that returns a Task may be waiting on the network, or on the file system, etc… doing so does not imply to start a new Thread or enqueue something on the ThreadPool.
Under a synchronization context that is handled by a single thread, the result will be to execute the Task synchronously, with some overhead. This is the case of the UI thread, I'll talk more about what happens below.
It is possible to write a custom TaskScheduler to always run tasks synchronously. On the same thread, that does the invocation.
Note: recently I wrote a custom SyncrhonizationContext that runs tasks on a single thread. You can find it at Creating a (System.Threading.Tasks.)Task scheduler. It would result in such TaskScheduler with a call to FromCurrentSynchronizationContext.
The default TaskScheduler will enqueue the invocations to the ThreadPool. Yet when you await on the operation, if it has not run on the ThreadPool it will try to remove it from the ThreadPool and run it inline (on the same thread that is waiting... the thread is waiting anyway, so it is not busy).
Note: One notable exception is a Task marked with LongRunning. LongRunning Tasks will run on a separate thread.
Your question
If I have a long running task that is CPU bound (let's say it is doing a lot of hard math), then running that task asynchronously must be blocking some thread right? Something has to actually do the math. If I await it then some thread is getting blocked.
If you are doing computations, they must happen on some thread, that part is right.
Yet, the beauty of async and await is that the waiting thread does not have to be blocked (more on that later). Yet, it is very easy to shoot yourself in the foot by having the awaited task scheduled to run on the same thread that is waiting, resulting in synchronous execution (which is an easy mistake in the UI thread).
One of the key characteristics of async and await is that they take the SynchronizationContext from the caller. For most threads that results in using the default TaskScheduler (which, as mentioned earlier, uses the ThreasPool). However, for UI thread it means posting the tasks into the message queue, this means that they will run on the UI thread. The advantage of this is that you don’t have to use Invoke or BeginInvoke to access UI components.
Before I go into how to await a Task from the UI thread without blocking it, I want to note that it is possible to implement a TaskScheduler where if you await on a Task, you don’t block your thread or have it go idle, instead you let your thread pick another Task that is waiting for execution. When I was backporting Tasks for .NET 2.0 I experimented with this.
What is an example of a truly asynchronous method and how would they actually work? Are those limited to I/O operations which take advantage of some hardware capabilities so no thread is ever blocked?
You seem to confuse asynchronous with not blocking a thread. If what you want is an example of asynchronous operations in .NET that do not require blocking a thread, a way to do it that you may find easy to grasp is to use continuations instead of await. And for the continuations that you need to run on the UI thread, you can use TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext.
Do not implement fancy spin waiting. And by that I mean using a Timer, Application.Idle or anything like that.
When you use async you are telling the compiler to rewrite the code of the method in a way that allows breaking it. The result is similar to continuations, with a much more convenient syntax. When the thread reaches an await the Task will be scheduled, and the thread is free to continue after the current async invocation (out of the method). When the Task is done, the continuation (after the await) is scheduled.
For the UI thread this means that once it reaches await, it is free to continue to process messages. Once the awaited Task is done, the continuation (after the await) will be scheduled. As a result, reaching await doesn’t imply to block the thread.
Yet blindly adding async and await won’t fix all your problems.
I submit to you an experiment. Get a new Windows Forms application, drop in a Button and a TextBox, and add the following code:
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await WorkAsync(5000);
textBox1.Text = #"DONE";
}
private async Task WorkAsync(int milliseconds)
{
Thread.Sleep(milliseconds);
}
It blocks the UI. What happens is that, as mentioned earlier, await automatically uses the SynchronizationContext of the caller thread. In this case, that is the UI thread. Therefore, WorkAsync will run on the UI thread.
This is what happens:
The UI threads gets the click message and calls the click event handler
In the click event handler, the UI thread reaches await WorkAsync(5000)
WorkAsync(5000) (and scheduling its continuation) is scheduled to run on the current synchronization context, which is the UI thread synchronization context… meaning that it posts a message to execute it
The UI thread is now free to process further messages
The UI thread picks the message to execute WorkAsync(5000) and schedule its continuation
The UI thread calls WorkAsync(5000) with continuation
In WorkAsync, the UI thread runs Thread.Sleep. The UI is now irresponsive for 5 seconds.
The continuation schedules the rest of the click event handler to run, this is done by posting another message for the UI thread
The UI thread is now free to process further messages
The UI thread picks the message to continue in the click event handler
The UI thread updates the textbox
The result is synchronous execution, with overhead.
Yes, you should use Task.Delay instead. That is not the point; consider Sleep a stand in for some computation. The point is that just using async and await everywhere won't give you an application that is automatically parallel. It is much better to pick what do you want to run on a background thread (e.g. on the ThreadPool) and what do you want to run on the UI thread.
Now, try the following code:
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await Task.Run(() => Work(5000));
textBox1.Text = #"DONE";
}
private void Work(int milliseconds)
{
Thread.Sleep(milliseconds);
}
You will find that await does not block the UI. This is because in this case Thread.Sleep is now running on the ThreadPool thanks to Task.Run. And thanks to button1_Click being async, once the code reaches await the UI thread is free to continue working. After the Task is done, the code will resume after the await thanks to the compiler rewriting the method to allow precisely that.
This is what happens:
The UI threads gets the click message and calls the click event handler
In the click event handler, the UI thread reaches await Task.Run(() => Work(5000))
Task.Run(() => Work(5000)) (and scheduling its continuation) is scheduled to run on the current synchronization context, which is the UI thread synchronization context… meaning that it posts a message to execute it
The UI thread is now free to process further messages
The UI thread picks the message to execute Task.Run(() => Work(5000)) and schedule its continuation when done
The UI thread calls Task.Run(() => Work(5000)) with continuation, this will run on the ThreadPool
The UI thread is now free to process further messages
When the ThreadPool finishes, the continuation will schedule the rest of the click event handler to run, this is done by posting another message for the UI thread. When the UI thread picks the message to continue in the click event handler it will updates the textbox.
Here's asynchronous code which shows how async / await allows code to block and release control to another flow, then resume control but not needing a thread.
public static async Task<string> Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("In Foo");
await Task.Yield();
Console.WriteLine("I'm Back");
return "Foo";
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var t = new Task(async () =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Start");
var f = Foo();
Console.WriteLine("After Foo");
var r = await f;
Console.WriteLine(r);
});
t.RunSynchronously();
Console.ReadLine();
}
So it's that releasing of control and resynching when you want results that's key with async/await ( which works well with threading )
NOTE: No Threads were blocked in the making of this code :)
I think sometimes the confusion might come from "Tasks" which doesn't mean something running on its own thread. It just means a thing to do, async / await allows tasks to be broken up into stages and coordinate those various stages into a flow.
It's kind of like cooking, you follow the recipe. You need to do all the prep work before assembling the dish for cooking. So you turn on the oven, start cutting things, grating things, etc. Then you await the temp of oven and await the prep work. You could do it by yourself swapping between tasks in a way that seems logical (tasks / async / await), but you can get someone else to help grate cheese while you chop carrots (threads) to get things done faster.
Stephen's answer is already great, so I'm not going to repeat what he said; I've done my fair share of repeating the same arguments many times on Stack Overflow (and elsewhere).
Instead, let me focus on one important abstract things about asynchronous code: it's not an absolute qualifier. There is no point in saying a piece of code is asynchronous - it's always asynchronous with respect to something else. This is quite important.
The purpose of await is to build synchronous workflows on top of asynchronous operations and some connecting synchronous code. Your code appears perfectly synchronous1 to the code itself.
var a = await A();
await B(a);
The ordering of events is specified by the await invocations. B uses the return value of A, which means A must have run before B. The method containing this code has a synchronous workflow, and the two methods A and B are synchronous with respect to each other.
This is very useful, because synchronous workflows are usually easier to think about, and more importantly, a lot of workflows simply are synchronous. If B needs the result of A to run, it must run after A2. If you need to make an HTTP request to get the URL for another HTTP request, you must wait for the first request to complete; it has nothing to do with thread/task scheduling. Perhaps we could call this "inherent synchronicity", apart from "accidental synchronicity" where you force order on things that do not need to be ordered.
You say:
In my mind, since I do mainly UI dev, async code is code that does not run on the UI thread, but on some other thread.
You're describing code that runs asynchronously with respect to the UI. That is certainly a very useful case for asynchrony (people don't like UI that stops responding). But it's just a specific case of a more general principle - allowing things to happen out of order with respect to one another. Again, it's not an absolute - you want some events to happen out of order (say, when the user drags the window or the progress bar changes, the window should still redraw), while others must not happen out of order (the Process button must not be clicked before the Load action finishes). await in this use case isn't that different from using Application.DoEvents in principle - it introduces many of the same problems and benefits.
This is also the part where the original quote gets interesting. The UI needs a thread to be updated. That thread invokes an event handler, which may be using await. Does it mean that the line where await is used will allow the UI to update itself in response to user input? No.
First, you need to understand that await uses its argument, just as if it were a method call. In my sample, A must have already been invoked before the code generated by await can do anything, including "releasing control back to the UI loop". The return value of A is Task<T> instead of just T, representing a "possible value in the future" - and await-generated code checks to see if the value is already there (in which case it just continues on the same thread) or not (which means we get to release the thread back to the UI loop). But in either case, the Task<T> value itself must have been returned from A.
Consider this implementation:
public async Task<int> A()
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
return 42;
}
The caller needs A to return a value (a task of int); since there's no awaits in the method, that means the return 42;. But that cannot happen before the sleep finishes, because the two operations are synchronous with respect to the thread. The caller thread will be blocked for a second, regardless of whether it uses await or not - the blocking is in A() itself, not await theTaskResultOfA.
In contrast, consider this:
public async Task<int> A()
{
await Task.Delay(1000);
return 42;
}
As soon as the execution gets to the await, it sees that the task being awaited isn't finished yet and returns control back to its caller; and the await in the caller consequently returns control back to its caller. We've managed to make some of the code asynchronous with respect to the UI. The synchronicity between the UI thread and A was accidental, and we removed it.
The important part here is: there's no way to distinguish between the two implementations from the outside without inspecting the code. Only the return type is part of the method signature - it doesn't say the method will execute asynchronously, only that it may. This may be for any number of good reasons, so there's no point in fighting it - for example, there's no point in breaking the thread of execution when the result is already available:
var responseTask = GetAsync("http://www.google.com");
// Do some CPU intensive task
ComputeAllTheFuzz();
response = await responseTask;
We need to do some work. Some events can run asynchronously with respect to others (in this case, ComputeAllTheFuzz is independent of the HTTP request) and are asynchronous. But at some point, we need to get back to a synchronous workflow (for example, something that requires both the result of ComputeAllTheFuzz and the HTTP request). That's the await point, which synchronizes the execution again (if you had multiple asynchronous workflows, you'd use something like Task.WhenAll). However, if the HTTP request managed to complete before the computation, there's no point in releasing control at the await point - we can simply continue on the same thread. There's been no waste of the CPU - no blocking of the thread; it does useful CPU work. But we didn't give any opportunity for the UI to update.
This is of course why this pattern is usually avoided in more general asynchronous methods. It is useful for some uses of asynchronous code (avoiding wasting threads and CPU time), but not others (keeping the UI responsive). If you expect such a method to keep the UI responsive, you're not going to be happy with the result. But if you use it as part of a web service, for example, it will work great - the focus there is on avoiding wasting threads, not keeping the UI responsive (that's already provided by asynchronously invoking the service endpoint - there's no benefit from doing the same thing again on the service side).
In short, await allows you to write code that is asynchronous with respect to its caller. It doesn't invoke a magical power of asynchronicity, it isn't asynchronous with respect to everything, it doesn't prevent you from using the CPU or blocking threads. It just gives you the tools to easily make a synchronous workflow out of asynchronous operations, and present part of the whole workflow as asynchronous with respect to its caller.
Let's consider an UI event handler. If the individual asynchronous operations happen to not need a thread to execute (e.g. asynchronous I/O), part of the asynchronous method may allow other code to execute on the original thread (and the UI stays responsive in those parts). When the operation needs the CPU/thread again, it may or may not require the original thread to continue the work. If it does, the UI will be blocked again for the duration of the CPU work; if it doesn't (the awaiter specifies this using ConfigureAwait(false)), the UI code will run in parallel. Assuming there's enough resources to handle both, of course. If you need the UI to stay responsive at all times, you cannot use the UI thread for any execution long enough to be noticeable - even if that means you have to wrap an unreliable "usually asynchronous, but sometimes blocks for a few seconds" async method in a Task.Run. There's costs and benefits to both approaches - it's a trade-off, as with all engineering :)
Of course, perfect as far as the abstraction holds - every abstraction leaks, and there's plenty of leaks in await and other approaches to asynchronous execution.
A sufficiently smart optimizer might allow some part of B to run, up to the point where the return value of A is actually needed; this is what your CPU does with normal "synchronous" code (Out of order execution). Such optimizations must preserve the appearance of synchronicity, though - if the CPU misjudges the ordering of operations, it must discard the results and present a correct ordering.
I have some .NET4 code that needs to know if/when a network request times out.
Is the following code going to cause a new Thread to be added to the .NET ThreadPool each time a task runs, and then release it when it exits?
var wait = new Task(() =>
{
using (var pauseEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false))
pauseEvent.WaitOne(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(delay));
}).ContinueWith(action);
wait.Start()
https://stackoverflow.com/a/15096427/464603 suggests this approach would work, but have performance implications for the general system.
If so, how would you recommend handling a high number of request timeouts/s - probably 1000timeouts/s when bursting?
In Python I have previously used something like a tornado IOLoop to make sure this isn't heavy on the Kernel / ThreadPool.
I have some .NET4 code that needs to know if/when a network request times out.
The easiest way to do this is to use a timeout right at the API level, e.g., WebRequest.Timeout or CancellationTokenSource.CancelAfter. That way the operation itself will actually stop with an error when the timeout occurs. This is the proper way to do a timeout.
Doing a timed wait is quite different. (Your code does a timed wait). With a timed wait, it's only the wait that times out; the operation is still going, consuming system resources, and has no idea that it's supposed to stop.
If you must do a timed wait on a WaitHandle like ManualResetEvent, then you can use ThreadPool.RegisterWaitForSingleObject, which allows a thread pool thread to wait for 31 objects at a time instead of just one. However, I would consider this a last-ditch extreme solution, only acceptable if the code simply cannot be modified to use proper timeouts.
P.S. Microsoft.Bcl.Async adds async/await support for .NET 4.
P.P.S. Don't ever use StartNew or ContinueWith without explicitly specifying a scheduler. As I describe on my blog, it's dangerous.
First of all, adding Tasks to Thread Pool doesn't necessarily cause new Thread to be added to Thread Pool. When you add a new Task to Thread Pool it is added to internal queue. Existing Threads from Thread Pool take Tasks from this queue one by one and execute them. Thread Pool will start new Threads or stop them as it deems appropriate.
Adding Task with blocking logic inside will cause Threads from Thread Pool to block. It means that they won't be able to execute other Tasks from queue, which will lead to performance issues.
One way to add delay to some action is to use Task.Delay method which internally uses timers.
Task.Delay(delay).ContinueWith(action);
This will not block any Threads from Thread Pool. After specified delay, action will be added to Thread Pool and executed.
You may also directly use timers.
As someone suggested in comment, you may also use async methods. I believe the following code would be equivalent of your sample.
public async Task ExecuteActionAfterDelay()
{
await Task.Delay(3000);
action();
}
You might also want to look at this question Asynchronously wait for Task<T> to complete with timeout.
I have a TPL Task that does two things. First, it calls a web service. Second, it inserts some data into a database. I have up to 20 Tasks started at one time doing this same thing over and over again. All they do all day is call web services and insert data into a database.
I'm fairly new to TPL in .NET. I've done some stuff with background worker processes and async web services.
The web service call and the database insert are both blocking calls within the thread the Task is running in.
I understand that under the covers, when you use Tasks, .NET manages a thread pool for you. Yes?
Would the thread pool have more threads at its disposal if I made the service call and database call with async and await() instead of making them blocking calls?
My theory (and I'm not sure why I think this) is that the thread is busy doing nothing while waiting on the blocking web service and can't return its resources temporarily to the pool. But I wonder if the Tasks were waiting for async calls to finish whether the main Task thread would be able to switch to let other stuff process while waiting.
Is my theory right? Or am I making stuff up?
I'm using c# and .NET 4.0, but I could go to 4.5 if needed.
Would the thread pool have more threads at its disposal if I made the
service call and database call with async and await() instead of
making them blocking calls?
It depends on what you mean by "making use of async-await".
When you use Task.Run, behind the scenes, the Task class uses the ThreadPool to offload work using a ThreadPool thread.
If your service doesn't expose a true async api and you uses Task.Run to queue your work, you will still be blocking a threadpool thread to do IO bound work, regardless of the use of async-await. In your question you state that both calls are blocking calls, and in that case the answer is no, the threadpool thread used to make those blocking calls woul still be blocked.
If your service and database calls were true async APIs (one that doesn't consume any extra threads to do its work), you could advantage of async-await, as when you await on one of those calls (and you shouldn't need to use Task.Run with them at all), the current thread will yield control back to the caller, and can be used in the meanwhile to do more work. If this is the case, then yes.
My theory (and I'm not sure why I think this) is that the thread is busy doing nothing while waiting on the blocking web service and can't return its resources temporarily to the pool. But I wonder if the Tasks were waiting for async calls to finish whether the main Task thread would be able to switch to let other stuff process while waiting.
Your theory is correct. If the main job of the queued threadpool work is to make an IO bound request then its spending of most its time simply blocking until the request finishes.
When you await a Task, control yields back to caller. Lets assume your service call was a REST call, you could use HttpClient which exposes true non-thread consuming async methods such as GetAsync, PostAsync, and when you await these calls, your calling thread is released to do more work in the meanwhile.
If all an application's tasks block, each task will use a thread from the thread pool.
If all tasks regularly await, the thread pool does not need to use a thread for every task.
When your code awaits an operation that hasn't completed yet, the method's state is saved such that it can be resumed on any other thread.
Idle threadpool threads get released after a while, so the actual thread which hits an await can be released from the thread pool while the method calling await is still running.
Putting all this together, an async version of a routine can do the same work with less threads (assuming the workload has enough balance of time awaiting vs spinning the CPU).
This code runs 100 tasks doing a synchronous wait:
var numTasks = 100;
for (int i = 0; i < numTasks; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(5);
Task.Run(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(5000);
Interlocked.Decrement(ref numTasks);
});
}
while (numTasks > 0) Thread.Sleep(100);
For the async wait, change it to:
Task.Run(async () =>
{
await Task.Delay(5000);
Interlocked.Decrement(ref numTasks);
});
On my system the async version grows the peak thread count half as much, and takes 20% of the time to do the same 'work'.
The answer is yes. Although technically it's not "waiting" for the async operation to complete (otherwise there would be no benefit to async). Under the hood there is a callback delegate that is run when the async operation completes, which is what allows your calling thread to proceed without blocking. It's the async/await magic that turns these 'continuations' into a linear looking piece of code.
Because you are using a threadpool thread, when it hits an await the thread will return to the threadpool. The thing to be careful with here is that the normal behaviour is when the awaited operation completes it will try to get back onto the thread that it was started on (now probably being used by another Task) so you may observe latency problems in getting the results back as threadpool threads are now tied up starting other tasks. Over time the threadpool will try to adjust the number of available threads to meet demand but you might find this doesn't happen quickly enough if you work comes in bursts. The result will be apparently poor performance as you may only have a small number of threads available.