I'm wondering, how can I prove that DownloadStringTaskAsync method was fired in the same thread or not as Main method.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
WebClient w = new WebClient();
Task<string> resultFromWebClient = w.DownloadStringTaskAsync("http://www.omdbapi.com/?s=batman");
Console.WriteLine($"result = {resultFromWebClient.Result}");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
how can I prove that DownloadStringTaskAsync method was fired in the same thread or not as Main method.
Well, you could enable network tracing and examine the thread id in the ETW logs.
Or, you could just make your own async method and test that:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
WebClient w = new WebClient();
Console.WriteLine(Environment.CurrentManagedThreadId);
Task<string> resultFromWebClient = GetAsync(w);
Console.WriteLine($"result = {resultFromWebClient.Result}");
Console.ReadKey();
}
static async Task<string> GetAsync(WebClient w)
{
Console.WriteLine(Environment.CurrentManagedThreadId);
return await w.DownloadStringTaskAsync("http://www.omdbapi.com/?s=batman");
}
What thread a task runs on is up to the TaskScheduler to decide (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.tasks.taskscheduler(v=vs.110).aspx).
Thus, in most cases, this is undefined. It mostly depends on which threads are available from a thread pool. E.g. if there are none avaliable, the task will have to wait to be assigned a thread.
However, in your case it most certainly will not run on the same thread because your Main() method never releases it's thread to the thread pool, because it does not await anything.
To figure out which thread your async method call occurs on you could write your code:
Task<string> resultFromWebClient = w.DownloadStringTaskAsync("http://www.omdbapi.com/?s=batman");
into it's equivalent form:
Task<string> resultFromWebClient = Task.Run(async () =>
{
var myCurrentThreadIs = System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread;
return await w.DownloadStringTaskAsync("http://www.omdbapi.com/?s=batman").ConfigureAwait(false);
}
DownloadStringTaskAsync() can run on multiple threads however, because it's internal code may await something and release it's thread to the thread pool, and be assigned a different thread when resuming. The code above will determine which thread it is first assigned. You may use ConfigureAwait(true) to make it synchronize back onto it's previous context, but that is not a guarantee to synchronize it back onto the initial thread. That is up to the particular SynchronizationContext.
Related
Since a pretty long time I'm trying to understand async-await stuff in .NET, but I struggle to succeed, there's always something totally unexpected happening when I use async.
Here's my application:
namespace ConsoleApp3
{
class Program
{
static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
var work1 = new WorkClass();
var work2 = new WorkClass();
while(true)
{
work1.DoWork(500);
work2.DoWork(1500);
}
}
}
public class WorkClass
{
public async Task DoWork(int delayMs)
{
var x = 1;
await Task.Delay(delayMs)
var y = 2;
}
}
}
It's just a sample that I created to check how the code will be executed. There are a few things that surprise me.
First off, there are many threads involved! If I set a breakpoint on var y = 2; I can see that threadId is not the same there, it can be 1, or 5, or 6, or something else.
Why is that? I thought that async/await does not use additional threads on its own unless I explicitly command that (by using Task.Run or creating a new Thread). At least this article tries to say that I think.
Ok, but let's say that there are some other threads for whatever reason - even if they are, my await Task.Delay(msDelay); does not have ConfigureAwait(false)! As I understand it, without this call, thread shouldn't change.
It's really difficult for me to grasp the concept well, because I cannot find any good resource that would contain all information instead of just a few pieces of information.
When an asynchronous method awaits something, if it's not complete, it schedules a continuation and then returns. The question is which thread the continuation runs on. If there's a synchronization context, the continuation is scheduled to run within that context - typically a UI thread, or potentially a specific pool of threads.
In your case, you're running a console app which means there is no synchronization context (SynchronizationContext.Current will return null). In that case, continuations are run on thread pool threads. It's not that a new thread is specifically created to run the continuation - it's just that the thread pool will pick up the continuation, whereas the "main" thread won't run the continuation.
ConfigureAwait(false) is used to indicate that you don't want to return to the current synchronization context for the continuation - but as there's no synchronization context anyway in your case, it would make no difference.
Async/await does not use additional threads on its own, but in your example it is not on its own. You are calling Task.Delay, and this method schedules a continuation to run in a thread-pool thread. There is no thread blocked during the delay though. A new thread is not created. When the time comes an existing thread is used to run the continuation, which in your case has very little work to do (just run the var y = 2 assignment), because you are not even awaiting the task returned by DoWork. When this work is done (a fraction of a microsecond later) the thread-pool thread is free again to do other jobs.
Instead of Task.Delay you could await another method that makes no use of threads at all, or a method that creates a dedicated long running thread, or a method that starts a new process. Async/await is not responsible for any of these. Async/await is just a mechanism for creating task continuations in a developer-friendly way.
Here is your application modified for a world without async/await:
class Program
{
static Task Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
var work1 = new WorkClass();
var work2 = new WorkClass();
while (true)
{
work1.DoWork(500);
work2.DoWork(1500);
}
}
}
public class WorkClass
{
public Task DoWork(int delayMs)
{
var x = 1;
int y;
return Task.Delay(delayMs).ContinueWith(_ =>
{
y = 2;
});
}
}
I do not understand how is the control returned to the caller when using async- await, since when i execute this code, the first thread gets practically destroyed when calling task inside the awaited method, and the thread that gives the result executes all remaining code.Below i have also drawn a diagram of how i thought the execution is, but it seems it is wrong.
Assumed workflow according to "returning control to the caller":
Results
Main
public static string GetThreadId => Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString();
static async Task Main(string[] args) {
Console.WriteLine("From main before async call , Thread:" + GetThreadId);
string myresult = await TestAsyncSimple();
Console.WriteLine("From main after async call ,Thread:" + GetThreadId);
Console.WriteLine("ResultComputed:" + myresult+",Thread:"+GetThreadId);
Console.ReadKey();
}
Async Task
public static async Task<string> TestAsyncSimple() {
Console.WriteLine("From TestAsyncSimple before delay,Thread:" + GetThreadId);
string result=await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {
Task.Delay(5000);
Console.WriteLine("From TestAsyncSimple inside Task,Thread:" + GetThreadId);
return "tadaa";
});
Console.WriteLine("From TestAsyncSimple after delay,Thread:" + GetThreadId);
return result;
}
Can anyone point me to the right direction?Also what causes the new thread to get spawned?Always when starting a Task ?Are there other "triggers" besides tasks that create new threads which will execute the remaining code?
async Main method is converted to something like this:
static void Main() {
RealMain().GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
static async Task RealMain() {
// code from async Main
}
With that in mind, at "From main before async call" point you are on main application thread (id 1). This is regular (non thread pool) thread. You will be on this thread until
await Task.Factory.StartNew(...)
At this point, StartNew starts a new task which will run on a thread pool thread, which is created or grabbed from pool if already available. This is thread 3 in your example.
When you reach await - control is returned back to the caller, where caller in this case is thread 1. What this thread does after await is reched? It's blocked here:
RealMain().GetAwaiter().GetResult();
waiting for result of RealMain.
Now thread 3 has finished execution but TestAsyncSimple() has more code to run. If there were no synchronization context before await (the case here - in console application) - the part after await will be executed on available thread pool thread. Since thread 3 has finished execution of its task - it is available and is capable to continue execution of the rest of TestAsyncSimple() and Main() functions, which it does. Thread 1 all this time is blocked as said above - so it cannot process any continuations (it's busy). In addition it's also not a thread pool thread (but that is not relevent here).
After you reached Console.ReadKey and pressed a key - Main task finally completes, thread 1 (waiting for this task to complete) is unblocked, then it returns from real Main function and process is terminated (only at this point thread 1 is "destroyed").
What's the difference between these two approaches:
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
string result;
Task.Run(async () =>
{
Task<string> getStringTask = GetStringAsync();
result = await validationsTask;
}).Wait();
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
and
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
Task<string> getStringTask = GetStringAsync();
getStringTask.Wait();
string result = getStringTask.Result;
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
I've seen a lot of people using the first approach and I'm not sure why. Is there any particular advantage? Which one is recommended for waiting async methods inside main of a Console Application?
Is there any particular advantage?
Usually with async methods the operation is initialized synchronously and then the wait can be asynchronous with await or syncrhnous with Wait(). The Main method can't be async so you are force to block with Wait() there or you can do a Console.ReadKey() to run until the user presses a key.
Task.Run(async () => ... ) can be quite useful when the async operation is expensive to initialize. That way you allow the main thread to continue while the operation is initializing.
Which one is recommended for waiting async methods inside main of a Console Application?
I would use a slightly modified version of the second approach. You can add a MainAsync method and call that from Main then you can use await inside it.
public static async Task MainAsync()
{
string result = await GetStringAsync();
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
MainAsync().Wait();
}
Also with console apps there is no risk of deadlock as there is no SynchronizationContext and the default thread pool one gets used.
The first approach continues execution after the asynch function is finished using a thread pool thread while the second approach continues execution using the calling thread that starts the asynch function.
With the second approach, there is a possibility of deadlocks. For example (similar to an example extracted from the book CLR via C#):
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
Task<string> getStringTask = GetStringAsync();
string result = getStringTask.Result; //the main thread is blocked waiting.
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
public Task<string> GetStringAsync()
{
// Issue the HTTP request and let the thread return from GetHttp
HttpResponseMessage msg = await new HttpClient().GetAsync("http://Wintellect.com/");
// We never get here: The main thread is waiting for this method to finish but this method
// can't finish because the main thread is waiting for it to finish --> DEADLOCK!
return await msg.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
}
So the first approach avoids this problem:
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
string result;
Task.Run(async () =>
{
// We run on a thread pool thread
Task<string> getStringTask = GetStringAsync();
// We do get here because any thread pool thread can execute this code, we don't need the main thread.
result = await validationsTask;
}).Wait();
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
Another solution is using ConfigureAwait(false), extracted from the book:
Passing true to this method gives you the same behavior as not calling
the method at all. But, if you pass false, the await operator does
not query the calling thread’s SynchronizationContext object and, when
a thread pool thread completes theTask, it simply completes it and the
code after the await operator executes via the thread pool thread.
public Task<string> GetStringAsync()
{
HttpResponseMessage msg = await new HttpClient().GetAsync("http://Wintellect.com/").ConfigureAwait(false);
// We DO get here now because a thread pool can execute this code
// as opposed to forcing the main thread to execute it.
return await msg.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
Given is a very common threading scenario:
Declaration
private Thread _thread;
private bool _isRunning = false;
Start
_thread = new Thread(() => NeverEndingProc());
thread.Start();
Method
private void NeverEndingProc() {
while(_isRunning) {
do();
}
}
Possibly used in a asynchronous tcp listener that awaits callbacks until it gets stopped by letting the thread run out (_isRunning = false).
Now I'm wondering: Is it possible to do the same thing with Task? Using a CancellationToken? Or are Tasks only for procedures that are expected to end and report status?
You can certainly do this just by passing NeverEndingProc to Task.Run.
However, there is one important difference in functionality: if an exception is propagated out of NeverEndingProc in a bare Thread, it will crash the process. If it is in a Task, it will raise TaskScheduler.UnobservedException and then be silently ignored (as of .NET 4.5).
That said, there are alternatives you can explore. Reactive Extensions, for example, pretty much removes any need for the "infinite thread loop".
One reason to use Task + CancellationToken is to make the individual processes and their cancellation more independent of each other. In your example, notice how NeverEndingProc needs a direct reference to the _isRunning field in the same class. Instead, you could accept an external token:
Start:
public void StartNeverEndingProc(CancellationToken token) {
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => NeverEndingProc(token), token);
}
Method:
private void NeverEndingProc(CancellationToken token) {
while (true) {
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
do();
}
}
Now cancellation is managed by the caller, and can be applied to multiple independent tasks:
var instance = new YourClass();
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
instance.StartNeverEndingProc(cts.Token); // start your task
StartOtherProc(cts.Token); // start another task
cts.Cancel(); // cancel both
I've discovered that TaskCompletionSource.SetResult(); invokes the code awaiting the task before returning. In my case that result in a deadlock.
This is a simplified version that is started in an ordinary Thread
void ReceiverRun()
while (true)
{
var msg = ReadNextMessage();
TaskCompletionSource<Response> task = requests[msg.RequestID];
if(msg.Error == null)
task.SetResult(msg);
else
task.SetException(new Exception(msg.Error));
}
}
The "async" part of the code looks something like this.
await SendAwaitResponse("first message");
SendAwaitResponse("second message").Wait();
The Wait is actually nested inside non-async calls.
The SendAwaitResponse(simplified)
public static Task<Response> SendAwaitResponse(string msg)
{
var t = new TaskCompletionSource<Response>();
requests.Add(GetID(msg), t);
stream.Write(msg);
return t.Task;
}
My assumption was that the second SendAwaitResponse would execute in a ThreadPool thread but it continues in the thread created for ReceiverRun.
Is there anyway to set the result of a task without continuing its awaited code?
The application is a console application.
I've discovered that TaskCompletionSource.SetResult(); invokes the code awaiting the task before returning. In my case that result in a deadlock.
Yes, I have a blog post documenting this (AFAIK it's not documented on MSDN). The deadlock happens because of two things:
There's a mixture of async and blocking code (i.e., an async method is calling Wait).
Task continuations are scheduled using TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously.
I recommend starting with the simplest possible solution: removing the first thing (1). I.e., don't mix async and Wait calls:
await SendAwaitResponse("first message");
SendAwaitResponse("second message").Wait();
Instead, use await consistently:
await SendAwaitResponse("first message");
await SendAwaitResponse("second message");
If you need to, you can Wait at an alternative point further up the call stack (not in an async method).
That's my most-recommended solution. However, if you want to try removing the second thing (2), you can do a couple of tricks: either wrap the SetResult in a Task.Run to force it onto a separate thread (my AsyncEx library has *WithBackgroundContinuations extension methods that do exactly this), or give your thread an actual context (such as my AsyncContext type) and specify ConfigureAwait(false), which will cause the continuation to ignore the ExecuteSynchronously flag.
But those solutions are much more complex than just separating the async and blocking code.
As a side note, take a look at TPL Dataflow; it sounds like you may find it useful.
As your app is a console app, it runs on the default synchronization context, where the await continuation callback will be called on the same thread the awaiting task has become completed on. If you want to switch threads after await SendAwaitResponse, you can do so with await Task.Yield():
await SendAwaitResponse("first message");
await Task.Yield();
// will be continued on a pool thread
// ...
SendAwaitResponse("second message").Wait(); // so no deadlock
You could further improve this by storing Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId inside Task.Result and comparing it to the current thread's id after the await. If you're still on the same thread, do await Task.Yield().
While I understand that SendAwaitResponse is a simplified version of your actual code, it's still completely synchronous inside (the way you showed it in your question). Why would you expect any thread switch in there?
Anyway, you probably should redesign your logic the way it doesn't make assumptions about what thread you are currently on. Avoid mixing await and Task.Wait() and make all of your code asynchronous. Usually, it's possible to stick with just one Wait() somewhere on the top level (e.g. inside Main).
[EDITED] Calling task.SetResult(msg) from ReceiverRun actually transfers the control flow to the point where you await on the task - without a thread switch, because of the default synchronization context's behavior. So, your code which does the actual message processing is taking over the ReceiverRun thread. Eventually, SendAwaitResponse("second message").Wait() is called on the same thread, causing the deadlock.
Below is a console app code, modeled after your sample. It uses await Task.Yield() inside ProcessAsync to schedule the continuation on a separate thread, so the control flow returns to ReceiverRun and there's no deadlock.
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication
{
class Program
{
class Worker
{
public struct Response
{
public string message;
public int threadId;
}
CancellationToken _token;
readonly ConcurrentQueue<string> _messages = new ConcurrentQueue<string>();
readonly ConcurrentDictionary<string, TaskCompletionSource<Response>> _requests = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, TaskCompletionSource<Response>>();
public Worker(CancellationToken token)
{
_token = token;
}
string ReadNextMessage()
{
// using Thread.Sleep(100) for test purposes here,
// should be using ManualResetEvent (or similar synchronization primitive),
// depending on how messages arrive
string message;
while (!_messages.TryDequeue(out message))
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
_token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
return message;
}
public void ReceiverRun()
{
LogThread("Enter ReceiverRun");
while (true)
{
var msg = ReadNextMessage();
LogThread("ReadNextMessage: " + msg);
var tcs = _requests[msg];
tcs.SetResult(new Response { message = msg, threadId = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId });
_token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested(); // this is how we terminate the loop
}
}
Task<Response> SendAwaitResponse(string msg)
{
LogThread("SendAwaitResponse: " + msg);
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<Response>();
_requests.TryAdd(msg, tcs);
_messages.Enqueue(msg);
return tcs.Task;
}
public async Task ProcessAsync()
{
LogThread("Enter Worker.ProcessAsync");
var task1 = SendAwaitResponse("first message");
await task1;
LogThread("result1: " + task1.Result.message);
// avoid deadlock for task2.Wait() with Task.Yield()
// comment this out and task2.Wait() will dead-lock
if (task1.Result.threadId == Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)
await Task.Yield();
var task2 = SendAwaitResponse("second message");
task2.Wait();
LogThread("result2: " + task2.Result.message);
var task3 = SendAwaitResponse("third message");
// still on the same thread as with result 2, no deadlock for task3.Wait()
task3.Wait();
LogThread("result3: " + task3.Result.message);
var task4 = SendAwaitResponse("fourth message");
await task4;
LogThread("result4: " + task4.Result.message);
// avoid deadlock for task5.Wait() with Task.Yield()
// comment this out and task5.Wait() will dead-lock
if (task4.Result.threadId == Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)
await Task.Yield();
var task5 = SendAwaitResponse("fifth message");
task5.Wait();
LogThread("result5: " + task5.Result.message);
LogThread("Leave Worker.ProcessAsync");
}
public static void LogThread(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}, thread: {1}", message, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Worker.LogThread("Enter Main");
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(5000); // cancel after 5s
var worker = new Worker(cts.Token);
Task receiver = Task.Run(() => worker.ReceiverRun());
Task main = worker.ProcessAsync();
try
{
Task.WaitAll(main, receiver);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("Exception: " + e.Message);
}
Worker.LogThread("Leave Main");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
This is not much different from doing Task.Run(() => task.SetResult(msg)) inside ReceiverRun. The only advantage I can think of is that you have an explicit control over when to switch threads. This way, you can stay on the same thread for as long as possible (e.g., for task2, task3, task4, but you still need another thread switch after task4 to avoid a deadlock on task5.Wait()).
Both solutions would eventually make the thread pool grow, which is bad in terms of performance and scalability.
Now, if we replace task.Wait() with await task everywhere inside ProcessAsync in the above code, we will not have to use await Task.Yield and there still will be no deadlocks. However, the whole chain of await calls after the 1st await task1 inside ProcessAsync will actually be executed on the ReceiverRun thread. As long as we don't block this thread with other Wait()-style calls and don't do a lot of CPU-bound work as we're processing messages, this approach might work OK (asynchronous IO-bound await-style calls still should be OK, and they may actually trigger an implicit thread switch).
That said, I think you'd need a separate thread with a serializing synchronization context installed on it for processing messages (similar to WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext). That's where your asynchronous code containing awaits should run. You'd still need to avoid using Task.Wait on that thread. And if an individual message processing takes a lot of CPU-bound work, you should use Task.Run for such work. For async IO-bound calls, you could stay on the same thread.
You may want to look at ActionDispatcher/ActionDispatcherSynchronizationContext from #StephenCleary's
Nito Asynchronous Library for your asynchronous message processing logic. Hopefully, Stephen jumps in and provides a better answer.
"My assumption was that the second SendAwaitResponse would execute in a ThreadPool thread but it continues in the thread created for ReceiverRun."
It depends entirely on what you do within SendAwaitResponse. Asynchrony and concurrency are not the same thing.
Check out: C# 5 Async/Await - is it *concurrent*?
A little late to the party, but here's my solution which i think is added value.
I've been struggling with this also, i've solved it by capturing the SynchronizationContext on the method that is awaited.
It would look something like:
// just a default sync context
private readonly SynchronizationContext _defaultContext = new SynchronizationContext();
void ReceiverRun()
{
while (true) // <-- i would replace this with a cancellation token
{
var msg = ReadNextMessage();
TaskWithContext<TResult> task = requests[msg.RequestID];
// if it wasn't a winforms/wpf thread, it would be null
// we choose our default context (threadpool)
var context = task.Context ?? _defaultContext;
// execute it on the context which was captured where it was added. So it won't get completed on this thread.
context.Post(state =>
{
if (msg.Error == null)
task.TaskCompletionSource.SetResult(msg);
else
task.TaskCompletionSource.SetException(new Exception(msg.Error));
});
}
}
public static Task<Response> SendAwaitResponse(string msg)
{
// The key is here! Save the current synchronization context.
var t = new TaskWithContext<Response>(SynchronizationContext.Current);
requests.Add(GetID(msg), t);
stream.Write(msg);
return t.TaskCompletionSource.Task;
}
// class to hold a task and context
public class TaskWithContext<TResult>
{
public SynchronizationContext Context { get; }
public TaskCompletionSource<TResult> TaskCompletionSource { get; } = new TaskCompletionSource<Response>();
public TaskWithContext(SynchronizationContext context)
{
Context = context;
}
}