I'm having some trouble getting a task to asynchronously delay. I am writing an application that needs to run at a scale of tens/hundreds of thousands of asynchronously executing scripts. I am doing this using C# Actions and sometimes, during the execution of a particular sequence, in order for the script to execute properly, it needs to wait on an external resource to reach an expected state. At first I wrote this using Thread.Sleep() but that turned out to be a torpedo in the applications performance, so I'm looking into async/await for async sleep. But I can't get it to actually wait on the pause! Can someone explain this?
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var sync = new List<Action>();
var async = new List<Action>();
var syncStopWatch = new Stopwatch();
sync.Add(syncStopWatch.Start);
sync.Add(() => Thread.Sleep(1000));
sync.Add(syncStopWatch.Stop);
sync.Add(() => Console.Write("Sync:\t" + syncStopWatch.ElapsedMilliseconds + "\n"));
var asyncStopWatch = new Stopwatch();
sync.Add(asyncStopWatch.Start);
sync.Add(async () => await Task.Delay(1000));
sync.Add(asyncStopWatch.Stop);
sync.Add(() => Console.Write("Async:\t" + asyncStopWatch.ElapsedMilliseconds + "\n"));
foreach (Action a in sync)
{
a.Invoke();
}
foreach (Action a in async)
{
a.Invoke();
}
}
The results of the execution are:
Sync: 999
Async: 2
How do I get it to wait asynchronously?
You're running into a problem with async void. When you pass an async lambda to an Action, the compiler is creating an async void method for you.
As a best practice, you should avoid async void.
One way to do this is to have your list of actions actually be a List<Func<Task>> instead of List<Action>. This allows you to queue async Task methods instead of async void methods.
This means your "execution" code would have to wait for each Task as it completes. Also, your synchronous methods would have to return Task.FromResult(0) or something like that so they match the Func<Task> signature.
If you want a bigger scope solution, I recommend you strongly consider TPL Dataflow instead of creating your own queue.
Related
I have a method that runs multiple async methods within it. I have to iterate over a list of devices, and pass the device to this method. I am noticing that this is taking a long time to complete so I am thinking of using Parallel.ForEach so it can run this process against multiple devices at the same time.
Let's say this is my method.
public async Task ProcessDevice(Device device) {
var dev = await _deviceService.LookupDeviceIndbAsNoTracking(device);
var result = await DoSomething(dev);
await DoSomething2(dev);
}
Then DoSomething2 also calls an async method.
public async Task DoSomething2(Device dev) {
foreach(var obj in dev.Objects) {
await DoSomething3(obj);
}
}
The list of devices continuously gets larger over time, so the more this list grows, the longer it takes the program to finish running ProcessDevice() against each device. I would like to process more than one device at a time. So I have been looking into using Parallel.ForEach.
Parallel.ForEach(devices, async device => {
try {
await ProcessDevice(device);
} catch (Exception ex) {
throw ex;
}
})
It appears that the program is finishing before the device is fully processed. I have also tried creating a list of tasks, and then foreach device, add a new task running ProcessDevice to that list and then awaiting Task.WhenAll(listOfTasks);
var listOfTasks = new List<Task>();
foreach(var device in devices) {
var task = Task.Run(async () => await ProcessDevice(device));
listOfTasks.Add(task);
}
await Task.WhenAll(listOfTasks);
But it appears that the task is marked as completed before ProcessDevice() is actually finished running.
Please excuse my ignorance on this issue as I am new to parallel processing and not sure what is going on. What is happening to cause this behavior and is there any documentation that you could provide that could help me better understand what to do?
You can't mix async with Parallel.ForEach. Since your underlying operation is asynchronous, you'd want to use asynchronous concurrency, not parallelism. Asynchronous concurrency is most easily expressed with WhenAll:
var listOfTasks = devices.Select(ProcessDevice).ToList();
await Task.WhenAll(listOfTasks);
In your last example there's a few problems:
var listOfTasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var device in devices)
{
await Task.Run(async () => await ProcessDevice(device));
}
await Task.WhenAll(listOfTasks);
Doing await Task.Run(async () => await ProcessDevice(device)); means you are not moving to the next iteration of the foreach loop until the previous one is done. Essentially, you're still doing them one at a time.
Additionally, you aren't adding any tasks to listOfTasks so it remains empty and therefore Task.WhenAll(listOfTasks) completes instantly because there's no tasks to await.
Try this:
var listOfTasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var device in devices)
{
var task = Task.Run(async () => await ProcessDevice(device))
listOfTasks.Add(task);
}
await Task.WhenAll(listOfTasks);
I can explain the problem with Parallel.ForEach. An important thing to understand is that when the await keyword acts on an incomplete Task, it returns. It will return its own incomplete Task if the method signature allows (if it's not void). Then it is up to the caller to use that Task object to wait for the job to finish.
But the second parameter in Parallel.ForEach is an Action<T>, which is a void method, which means no Task can be returned, which means the caller (Parallel.ForEach in this case) has no way to wait until the job has finished.
So in your case, as soon as it hits await ProcessDevice(device), it returns and nothing waits for it to finish so it starts the next iteration. By the time Parallel.ForEach is finished, all it has done is started all the tasks, but not waited for them.
So don't use Parallel.ForEach with asynchronous code.
Stephen's answer is more appropriate. You can also use WSC's answer, but that can be dangerous with larger lists. Creating hundreds or thousands of new threads all at once will not help your performance.
not very sure it this if what you are asking for, but I can give example of how we start async process
private readonly Func<Worker> _worker;
private void StartWorkers(IEnumerable<Props> props){
Parallel.ForEach(props, timestamp => { _worker.Invoke().Consume(timestamp); });
}
Would recommend reading about Parallel.ForEach as it will do some part for you.
My code is continuing to execute before all tasks have been completed.
I've had a look at other people with a similar problem but can't see anything obvious!
static Task MoveAccountAsync(MoverParams moverParams)
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Moving {0}", moverParams.Account.Name);
moverParams.Account.Mover.RefreshRoom();
moverParams.Account.Mover.PathfindTo(moverParams.Room);
});
}
static async void MoveAccountsAsync(List<Account> accounts, int room)
{
List<Task> theTasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (Account account in accounts)
{
// Create a new task and add it to the task list
theTasks.Add(MoveAccountAsync(new MoverParams(account, room)));
}
await Task.WhenAll(theTasks);
Console.WriteLine("Finished moving.");
}
Then simply calling it from static main:
MoveAccountsAsync(theAccounts, room);
Help much appreciated!
Cheers,
Dave
async void methods are highly discouraged and often times (e.g. here) sign of an issue.
Because you're not awaiting your method call (and you can't await it because it returns void) caller will not wait for all the work to finish before moving on to the next statement.
Change your method to return Task and await it to fix the problem. If you're calling into MoveAccountsAsync from synchronous context (e.g. Main method) use Wait to wait on the results. But be aware that in certain conditions (e.g. if run as part of ASP.NET application) that might cause deadlocks.
I have this method which I would like to run asynchronously so that I can do other things while it runs. It does not rely on any other Async method (it doesn't call out to another resource, download a file or anything). I would like to avoid using new Task(), Task.Factory.StartTask() and Task.Run(), if possible.
Is it possible to run this method asynchronously, with tidy, readable code and without using Task explicitly?
If not, what is the tidiest way of running the method asynchronously?
Note: Please don't be concerned with the silly logic in the method - I have boiled it down to be deliberately slow but not show my actual code.
public static void main(string[] args)
{
RunMySlowLogic();
}
private void RunMySlowLogic()
{
while (true)
for (int i=0; i<100000000;i++)
if (i == new Random().Next(999))
return true;
}
Currently, I believe that I would need to wrap the method in a lambda or Task and mark it async. Where would the await go?
You're confusing two different things. You can run this in the background, and this method can be asynchronous. These are 2 different things and your method can do either, or both.
If you do something asynchronous in that method, like Task.Delay or some non-blocking I/O then call that method, await the returned task and make the method itself async:
async Task RunMySlowLogicAsync()
{
while (true)
{
// ...
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
If you don't have such a thing then your method isn't asynchronous, it's synchronous. You can still run it in the background on a different (ThreadPool) thread while you do other things using Task.Run:
var task = Task.Run(() => RunMySlowLogic());
There are multiple ways of executing code asynchronously in the .NET environment. Have a look at the Asynchronous Programming Patterns MSDN article.
Tasks are to make your job easier. I think the only valid reason to avoid using tasks is when you are targeting an older version of .NET.
So without Tasks, you can start a thread yourself, or use a ThreadPool (Tasks do this internally).
public static void main(string[] args)
{
var are = new AutoResetEvent(false);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(RunMySlowLogicWrapped, are);
// Do some other work here
are.WaitOne();
}
// you have to match the signature of WaitCallback delegate, we can use it to communicate cross-thread
private void RunMySlowLogicWrapped(Object state) {
AutoResetEvent are = (AutoResetEvent) state;
RunMySlowLogic();
are.Set();
}
private bool RunMySlowLogic()
{
while (true)
for (int i=0; i<100000000;i++)
if (i == new Random().Next(999))
return true;
}
I'm needing to create a list of tasks to execute a routine that takes one parameter and then wait for those tasks to complete before continuing with the rest of the program code. Here is an example:
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (string URL in LIST_URL_COLLECTION)
{
tasks[i] = Task.Factory.StartNew(
GoToURL(URL)
);
}
//wait for them to finish
Console.WriteLine("Done");
I've have googled and searched this site but I just keep hitting a dead end, I did this once but can't remember how.
The Task Parallel Library exposes a convinent way to asynchronously wait for the completion of all tasks via the Task.WhenAll method. The method returns a Task by itself which is awaitable and should be awaited:
public async Task QueryUrlsAsync()
{
var urlFetchingTasks = ListUrlCollection.Select(url => Task.Run(url));
await Task.WhenAll(urlFetchingTasks);
Console.WriteLine("Done");
}
Note that in order to await, your method must be marked with the async modifier in the method signature and return either a Task (if it has no return value) or a Task<T> (if it does have a return value, which type is T).
As a side note, your method looks like it's fetching urls, which i am assuming is generating a web request to some endpoint. In order to do that, there's no need to use extra threads via Task.Factory.StartNew or Task.Run, as these operations are naturally asynchronous. You should look into HttpClient as a starting point. For example, your method could look like this:
public async Task QueryUrlsAsync()
{
var urlFetchingTasks = ListUrlCollection.Select(url =>
{
var httpClient = new HttpClient();
return httpClient.GetAsync(url);
});
await Task.WhenAll(urlFetchingTasks);
Console.WriteLine("Done");
}
I have some code that creates a task that does some slow work like this:
public static Task wait1()
{
return new Task(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
Thread.Sleep(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
});
}
In the real implementation, the Thread.Sleep will actually be a web service call. I would like to change the body of the method can use await (so it does not consume a thread during the network access/sleep). My first attempt (based on shotgun-debugging the compile errors) was this:
public static Task wait2()
{
return new Task(async () =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
await Task.Delay(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
});
}
However; this task doesn't seem to behave the same as the first one, because when I call .Wait() on it; it returns immediately.
Below is a full sample (console app) showing the differences (the app will end immediately when the second task starts).
What do I need to do so that I can call Start and Wait on a Task which happens to have code using await inside it? The tasks are queued and executed later by an agent, so it's vital that the task is not auto-started.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var w1 = wait1();
w1.Start();
w1.Wait(); // This waits 110 seconds
var w2 = wait2();
w2.Start();
w2.Wait(); // This returns immediately
}
public static Task wait1()
{
return new Task(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
Thread.Sleep(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
});
}
public static Task wait2()
{
return new Task(async () =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
await Task.Delay(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
});
}
}
It seems like this isn't possible! See alexm's answer here:
Tasks returned by async methods are always hot i.e. they are created in Running state.
:-(
I've worked around this by making my agent queue Func<Task>s instead, and the overload that receives a task simply queues () => task. Then; when de-queing a task, I check if it's not running, and if so, start it:
var currentTask = currentTaskFunction();
if (currentTask.Status == TaskStatus.Created)
currentTask.Start();
It seems a little clunky to have to do this (if this simple workaround works; why the original restriction on async methods always being created hot?), but it seems to work for me :-)
You could write this as:
public static async Task Wait2()
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
await Task.Delay(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
}
In general, it's rarely a good idea to ever use new Task or new Task<T>. If you must launch a task using the ThreadPool instead of using the async/await language support to compose one, you should use Task.Run to start the task. This will schedule the task to run (which is important, tasks should always be "hot" by conventions).
Note that doing this will make it so you don't have to call Task.Start, as well.
To help you understand this realize that async / await essentially does not create a new thread but rather it schedules that portion of code to be ran at an available point in time.
When you create the new Task(async () => ...) you have a task that run an async method. When that inner async method hits an await the 'new Task' is considered complete because the rest of it has been scheduled. To help you understand better place some code (a lot if wanted) in the 'new Task' before the await command. It will all execute before the application terminates and once await is reached that task will believe it has completed. It then returns and exits the application.
The best way to avoid this is to not place any task or async methods inside of your task.
Remove the async keyword and the await keyword from the method and it will work as expected.
This is the same as creating a callback if you're familiar with that.
void MethodAsync(Action callback)
{
//...some code
callback?.Invoke();
}
//using this looks like this.
MethodAsync(() => { /*code to run when complete */});
//This is the same as
Task MethodAsync()
{
//... some code here
}
//using it
await MethodAsync();
/*code to run when complete */
The thing to understand is that you're creating a new task within a task basically. So the inner 'callback' is being created at the await keyword.
You're code looks like this..
void MethodAsync(Action callback)
{
//some code to run
callback?.Invoke(); // <- this is the await keyword
//more code to run.. which happens after we run whoever is
//waiting on callback
}
There's code missing obviously. If this doesn't make sense please feel free to contact me and I'll assist. async / await (meant to make things simpler) is a beast to wrap your head around at first. Afterward you get it then it'll probably be your favorite thing in c# since linq. :P
Try this:
public async static Task wait2()
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
await Task.Delay(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
}
But we aware that the task is already started so you don't have to call start:
var w2 = wait2();
//w2.Start();
w2.Wait();
I think the problem with your wait2 function is that is creating 2 task, the one in new Task(...) and another in Task.Delay(). You are waiting for the first one, but you are not waiting for the inner one.