currently, I am building a small application with Rust and Tauri but I've got the following issue that I need to solve:
Things that I want to do simultaneously:
Checking every 10 sec if a specific application is running
Polling every second data from SharedMemory via winapi
Both of them are working fine but I tried to refactor stuff and now I've got the following problem:
When my frontend sends me an event that the application is ready (or inside .on_page_load() I want to start both processes I mentioned before:
#[tauri::command]
async fn app_ready(window: tauri::Window) {
let is_alive = false; // I think this needs to be a mutex or a mutex that is wrapped around Arc::new()
tokio::join!(
poll_acc_process(&window, &is_alive),
handle_phycics(&window, &is_alive),
);
}
Visual Studio Code is complaining about the following stuff: future cannot be sent between threads safely within impl futures::Future<Output = ()>, the trait std::marker::Send is not implemented for *mut c_void
c_void is the handle of CreateFileMappingW from the winapi crate.
async fn poll_acc_process(window: &Window, is_alive: &bool) {
loop {
window.emit("acc_process", is_alive).unwrap();
tokio::time::sleep(time::Duration::from_secs(10));
}
}
async fn handle_phycics(window: &Window, is_alive: &bool) {
while is_alive {
let s_handle = get_statics_mapped_file(); // _handle represents c_void here
let s_memory = get_statics_mapview_of_file(s_handle);
window
.emit("update_statistics", Statics::new_from_memory(s_memory))
.unwrap();
let p_handle = get_physics_mapped_file(); // _handle represents c_void here
let physics = get_physics_mapview_of_file(p_handle);
window.emit("update_physics", physics).unwrap();
if physics.current_max_rpm != 0 {
let g_handle = get_graphics_mapped_file(); // _handle represents c_void here
let g_memory = get_graphics_mapview_of_file(g_handle);
window
.emit("update_graphics", Graphics::new_from_mem(g_memory))
.unwrap();
}
tokio::time::sleep(time::Duration::from_secs(1)).await;
}
}
Is it possible to solve my problem somehow this way or should I try another approach?
I am trying to make a POST HTTP request using the Hyper library, and then write data to it until I close it (from multiple functions/threads). I've found in documentation that I can use Body::channel() to do this, but I am using it improperly as I can only write to the channel once. I haven't found any examples, can someone please point me into the right direction?
let (mut sender, body) = Body::channel();
let request = Request::builder()
.method(Method::POST)
.uri("http://localhost:3000/")
.header("content-type", "text")
.body(body)
.unwrap();
let client = Client::new();
let response = client.request(request);
//Does get sent
println!("Body: {:?}", sender.send_data(hyper::body::Bytes::from("test\n")).await);
//Stuck on this one
println!("Body: {:?}", sender.send_data(hyper::body::Bytes::from("test2\n")).await);
//Debug print
println!("{:?}", response.await);
You'd need to wrap the send_data() lines in tokio::spawn(async move { ... });.
The issue is that Body/Sender only has a buffer size of 1. So the second send_data() call causes it to await (internally) until the Sender is ready. This is what subsequently causes it to "get stuck".
This is resolved by using tokio::spawn() as it finally allows awaiting the ResponseFuture, which causes the request to be performed.
let (sender, body) = Body::channel();
let request = Request::builder()
.method(Method::POST)
.uri("http://localhost:3000/")
.header("content-type", "text")
.body(body)
.unwrap();
let client = Client::new();
let response = client.request(request);
tokio::spawn(async move {
let mut sender = sender;
println!("Body: {:?}", sender.send_data(hyper::body::Bytes::from("test\n")).await);
println!("Body: {:?}", sender.send_data(hyper::body::Bytes::from("test2\n")).await);
});
println!("{:?}", response.await);
The buffer size isn't mentioned in the docs (that I know of). However, you can figure that out by checking the source related to Body::channel(), where you can see it constructs a MPSC using futures_channel::mpsc::channel(0). The docs mention that the buffer size would be buffer + num-senders, which in our case would be 0 + 1.
I am rying to serialize cbor using serde_tokio.
I can make a simple program work, but I need to actually store the tokio_serde::SymmetricallyFramed::new() in a structure to use it more than once.
(It consumes the socket, which is cool).
I can't seem to write a type that will store the value.
use futures::prelude::*;
use tokio::net::TcpStream;
use tokio_serde::formats::*;
use tokio_util::codec::{FramedWrite, LengthDelimitedCodec};
#[tokio::main]
pub async fn main() {
// Bind a server socket
let socket = TcpStream::connect("127.0.0.1:17653").await.unwrap();
// Delimit frames using a length header
let length_delimited = FramedWrite::new(socket, LengthDelimitedCodec::new());
// Serialize frames with JSON
let mut serialized = tokio_serde::SymmetricallyFramed::new(length_delimited, SymmetricalCbor::default());
// Send the value
serialized
.send(vec![1i32,2,3])
.await
.unwrap()
}
produces the right output. (Adopted from the json example in tokio-serde crate, here: https://github.com/carllerche/tokio-serde/blob/master/examples/client.rs
I want to put "serialized" into a structure (and hide how it is created in a fn), but I can't seem to write the right type.
use futures::prelude::*;
use serde_cbor;
use tokio::net::TcpStream;
use tokio_serde::formats::*;
use tokio_util::codec::{FramedWrite, LengthDelimitedCodec};
type CborWriter = tokio_serde::Framed<tokio_util::codec::FramedWrite<tokio::net::TcpStream, tokio_util::codec::LengthDelimitedCodec>, serde_cbor::Value, serde_cbor::Value, tokio_serde::formats::Cbor<serde_cbor::Value, serde_cbor::Value>>;
// something like this has been suggested, but so far no luck.
// fn setup_writer(socket: tokio::net::TcpStream) -> impl Sink<??>+Debug {
fn setup_writer(socket: tokio::net::TcpStream) -> CborWriter {
// Delimit frames using a length header
let length_delimited = FramedWrite::new(socket, LengthDelimitedCodec::new());
// Serialize frames with CBOR
let serialized = tokio_serde::SymmetricallyFramed::new(length_delimited, SymmetricalCbor::default());
return serialized;
}
#[tokio::main]
pub async fn main() {
// Bind a server socket
let socket = TcpStream::connect("127.0.0.1:17653").await.unwrap();
// Serialize frames with CBOR
let mut serialized = setup_writer(socket);
// Send the value
serialized
.send(serde_cbor::Value::Array(vec![serde_cbor::Value::Integer(1i128),
serde_cbor::Value::Integer(2i128),
serde_cbor::Value::Integer(3i128)]))
.await
.unwrap()
}
But, I don't want to put cbor::Value in. I should just be able to put the Serializable objects in. So I am obviously going in the wrong direction here. The JSON example in the tokio-serde crate is happy to put in/out serde_json::Value, but I should have to do that, I think.
A suggestion on Discord was made to change the first example as:
let mut serialized: () = tokio_serde::SymmetricallyFramed::new(length_delimited, SymmetricalCbor::default());
and let the compiler tell me what the type is:
= note: expected unit type `()`
found struct `tokio_serde::Framed<tokio_util::codec::FramedWrite<tokio::net::TcpStream, tokio_util::codec::LengthDelimitedCodec>, _, _, tokio_serde::formats::Cbor<_, _>>`
Well, I can't put _ into the type alias, or write it directly.
I think it should say something like "impl Serialize", but that's not yet a thing.
Obviously, the compiler gets the first example right, so there must be something that will go in there... but what?
Consider this function receiving datagrams from UDP socket:
async fn recv_multiple(socket: &async_std::net::UdpSocket) -> Vec<String> {
let mut buf = [0; 1024];
let mut v = vec![];
while let Ok((amt, _src)) = socket.recv_from(&mut buf).await {
v.push(String::from_utf8_lossy(&buf[..amt]).to_string());
}
v
}
And then it is executed for example like this:
let fut = recv_multiple(&socket);
async_std::task::block_on(fut);
How to add timeout functionality so that after exactly 1 minute a Vec<String> (empty or not) is returned from recv_multiple? I need to collect incoming datagrams for a minute and then return what was captured during that time. Please note that I don't need to timeout a single recv_from operation because datagrams can appear very often and the function will never timeout.
I've found a couple of partial solutions but they don't fit well:
async_std::future::timeout times out a Future but partially filled Vec is discarded and only Err is returned
async_std::future::Future::timeout same story, partial output is discarded
As I see it I should pass some kind of a "timeout" Future inside this function and in while let I have to await on both socket and "timeout" Future. Then if socket fires we proceed but if "timeout" fires then we return from the function. But I'm not sure how to accomplish this.
Instead of timeouting on recv_multiple you can timeout on socket.recv_from inside recv_multiple. It'll require to recalculate remaining time after each iteration. And when remaining time is 0 then you can return your Vec<_>.
In a language like C#, giving this code (I am not using the await keyword on purpose):
async Task Foo()
{
var task = LongRunningOperationAsync();
// Some other non-related operation
AnotherOperation();
result = task.Result;
}
In the first line, the long operation is run in another thread, and a Task is returned (that is a future). You can then do another operation that will run in parallel of the first one, and at the end, you can wait for the operation to be finished. I think that it is also the behavior of async/await in Python, JavaScript, etc.
On the other hand, in Rust, I read in the RFC that:
A fundamental difference between Rust's futures and those from other languages is that Rust's futures do not do anything unless polled. The whole system is built around this: for example, cancellation is dropping the future for precisely this reason. In contrast, in other languages, calling an async fn spins up a future that starts executing immediately.
In this situation, what is the purpose of async/await in Rust? Seeing other languages, this notation is a convenient way to run parallel operations, but I cannot see how it works in Rust if the calling of an async function does not run anything.
You are conflating a few concepts.
Concurrency is not parallelism, and async and await are tools for concurrency, which may sometimes mean they are also tools for parallelism.
Additionally, whether a future is immediately polled or not is orthogonal to the syntax chosen.
async / await
The keywords async and await exist to make creating and interacting with asynchronous code easier to read and look more like "normal" synchronous code. This is true in all of the languages that have such keywords, as far as I am aware.
Simpler code
This is code that creates a future that adds two numbers when polled
before
fn long_running_operation(a: u8, b: u8) -> impl Future<Output = u8> {
struct Value(u8, u8);
impl Future for Value {
type Output = u8;
fn poll(self: Pin<&mut Self>, _ctx: &mut Context) -> Poll<Self::Output> {
Poll::Ready(self.0 + self.1)
}
}
Value(a, b)
}
after
async fn long_running_operation(a: u8, b: u8) -> u8 {
a + b
}
Note that the "before" code is basically the implementation of today's poll_fn function
See also Peter Hall's answer about how keeping track of many variables can be made nicer.
References
One of the potentially surprising things about async/await is that it enables a specific pattern that wasn't possible before: using references in futures. Here's some code that fills up a buffer with a value in an asynchronous manner:
before
use std::io;
fn fill_up<'a>(buf: &'a mut [u8]) -> impl Future<Output = io::Result<usize>> + 'a {
futures::future::lazy(move |_| {
for b in buf.iter_mut() { *b = 42 }
Ok(buf.len())
})
}
fn foo() -> impl Future<Output = Vec<u8>> {
let mut data = vec![0; 8];
fill_up(&mut data).map(|_| data)
}
This fails to compile:
error[E0597]: `data` does not live long enough
--> src/main.rs:33:17
|
33 | fill_up_old(&mut data).map(|_| data)
| ^^^^^^^^^ borrowed value does not live long enough
34 | }
| - `data` dropped here while still borrowed
|
= note: borrowed value must be valid for the static lifetime...
error[E0505]: cannot move out of `data` because it is borrowed
--> src/main.rs:33:32
|
33 | fill_up_old(&mut data).map(|_| data)
| --------- ^^^ ---- move occurs due to use in closure
| | |
| | move out of `data` occurs here
| borrow of `data` occurs here
|
= note: borrowed value must be valid for the static lifetime...
after
use std::io;
async fn fill_up(buf: &mut [u8]) -> io::Result<usize> {
for b in buf.iter_mut() { *b = 42 }
Ok(buf.len())
}
async fn foo() -> Vec<u8> {
let mut data = vec![0; 8];
fill_up(&mut data).await.expect("IO failed");
data
}
This works!
Calling an async function does not run anything
The implementation and design of a Future and the entire system around futures, on the other hand, is unrelated to the keywords async and await. Indeed, Rust has a thriving asynchronous ecosystem (such as with Tokio) before the async / await keywords ever existed. The same was true for JavaScript.
Why aren't Futures polled immediately on creation?
For the most authoritative answer, check out this comment from withoutboats on the RFC pull request:
A fundamental difference between Rust's futures and those from other
languages is that Rust's futures do not do anything unless polled. The
whole system is built around this: for example, cancellation is
dropping the future for precisely this reason. In contrast, in other
languages, calling an async fn spins up a future that starts executing
immediately.
A point about this is that async & await in Rust are not inherently
concurrent constructions. If you have a program that only uses async &
await and no concurrency primitives, the code in your program will
execute in a defined, statically known, linear order. Obviously, most
programs will use some kind of concurrency to schedule multiple,
concurrent tasks on the event loop, but they don't have to. What this
means is that you can - trivially - locally guarantee the ordering of
certain events, even if there is nonblocking IO performed in between
them that you want to be asynchronous with some larger set of nonlocal
events (e.g. you can strictly control ordering of events inside of a
request handler, while being concurrent with many other request
handlers, even on two sides of an await point).
This property gives Rust's async/await syntax the kind of local
reasoning & low-level control that makes Rust what it is. Running up
to the first await point would not inherently violate that - you'd
still know when the code executed, it would just execute in two
different places depending on whether it came before or after an
await. However, I think the decision made by other languages to start
executing immediately largely stems from their systems which
immediately schedule a task concurrently when you call an async fn
(for example, that's the impression of the underlying problem I got
from the Dart 2.0 document).
Some of the Dart 2.0 background is covered by this discussion from munificent:
Hi, I'm on the Dart team. Dart's async/await was designed mainly by
Erik Meijer, who also worked on async/await for C#. In C#, async/await
is synchronous to the first await. For Dart, Erik and others felt that
C#'s model was too confusing and instead specified that an async
function always yields once before executing any code.
At the time, I and another on my team were tasked with being the
guinea pigs to try out the new in-progress syntax and semantics in our
package manager. Based on that experience, we felt async functions
should run synchronously to the first await. Our arguments were
mostly:
Always yielding once incurs a performance penalty for no good reason. In most cases, this doesn't matter, but in some it really
does. Even in cases where you can live with it, it's a drag to bleed a
little perf everywhere.
Always yielding means certain patterns cannot be implemented using async/await. In particular, it's really common to have code like
(pseudo-code here):
getThingFromNetwork():
if (downloadAlreadyInProgress):
return cachedFuture
cachedFuture = startDownload()
return cachedFuture
In other words, you have an async operation that you can call multiple times before it completes. Later calls use the same
previously-created pending future. You want to ensure you don't start
the operation multiple times. That means you need to synchronously
check the cache before starting the operation.
If async functions are async from the start, the above function can't use async/await.
We pleaded our case, but ultimately the language designers stuck with
async-from-the-top. This was several years ago.
That turned out to be the wrong call. The performance cost is real
enough that many users developed a mindset that "async functions are
slow" and started avoiding using it even in cases where the perf hit
was affordable. Worse, we see nasty concurrency bugs where people
think they can do some synchronous work at the top of a function and
are dismayed to discover they've created race conditions. Overall, it
seems users do not naturally assume an async function yields before
executing any code.
So, for Dart 2, we are now taking the very painful breaking change to
change async functions to be synchronous to the first await and
migrating all of our existing code through that transition. I'm glad
we're making the change, but I really wish we'd done the right thing
on day one.
I don't know if Rust's ownership and performance model place different
constraints on you where being async from the top really is better,
but from our experience, sync-to-the-first-await is clearly the better
trade-off for Dart.
cramert replies (note that some of this syntax is outdated now):
If you need code to execute immediately when a function is called
rather than later on when the future is polled, you can write your
function like this:
fn foo() -> impl Future<Item=Thing> {
println!("prints immediately");
async_block! {
println!("prints when the future is first polled");
await!(bar());
await!(baz())
}
}
Code examples
These examples use the async support in Rust 1.39 and the futures crate 0.3.1.
Literal transcription of the C# code
use futures; // 0.3.1
async fn long_running_operation(a: u8, b: u8) -> u8 {
println!("long_running_operation");
a + b
}
fn another_operation(c: u8, d: u8) -> u8 {
println!("another_operation");
c * d
}
async fn foo() -> u8 {
println!("foo");
let sum = long_running_operation(1, 2);
another_operation(3, 4);
sum.await
}
fn main() {
let task = foo();
futures::executor::block_on(async {
let v = task.await;
println!("Result: {}", v);
});
}
If you called foo, the sequence of events in Rust would be:
Something implementing Future<Output = u8> is returned.
That's it. No "actual" work is done yet. If you take the result of foo and drive it towards completion (by polling it, in this case via futures::executor::block_on), then the next steps are:
Something implementing Future<Output = u8> is returned from calling long_running_operation (it does not start work yet).
another_operation does work as it is synchronous.
the .await syntax causes the code in long_running_operation to start. The foo future will continue to return "not ready" until the computation is done.
The output would be:
foo
another_operation
long_running_operation
Result: 3
Note that there are no thread pools here: this is all done on a single thread.
async blocks
You can also use async blocks:
use futures::{future, FutureExt}; // 0.3.1
fn long_running_operation(a: u8, b: u8) -> u8 {
println!("long_running_operation");
a + b
}
fn another_operation(c: u8, d: u8) -> u8 {
println!("another_operation");
c * d
}
async fn foo() -> u8 {
println!("foo");
let sum = async { long_running_operation(1, 2) };
let oth = async { another_operation(3, 4) };
let both = future::join(sum, oth).map(|(sum, _)| sum);
both.await
}
Here we wrap synchronous code in an async block and then wait for both actions to complete before this function will be complete.
Note that wrapping synchronous code like this is not a good idea for anything that will actually take a long time; see What is the best approach to encapsulate blocking I/O in future-rs? for more info.
With a threadpool
// Requires the `thread-pool` feature to be enabled
use futures::{executor::ThreadPool, future, task::SpawnExt, FutureExt};
async fn foo(pool: &mut ThreadPool) -> u8 {
println!("foo");
let sum = pool
.spawn_with_handle(async { long_running_operation(1, 2) })
.unwrap();
let oth = pool
.spawn_with_handle(async { another_operation(3, 4) })
.unwrap();
let both = future::join(sum, oth).map(|(sum, _)| sum);
both.await
}
The purpose of async/await in Rust is to provide a toolkit for concurrency—same as in C# and other languages.
In C# and JavaScript, async methods start running immediately, and they're scheduled whether you await the result or not. In Python and Rust, when you call an async method, nothing happens (it isn't even scheduled) until you await it. But it's largely the same programming style either way.
The ability to spawn another task (that runs concurrent with and independent of the current task) is provided by libraries: see async_std::task::spawn and tokio::task::spawn.
As for why Rust async is not exactly like C#, well, consider the differences between the two languages:
Rust discourages global mutable state. In C# and JS, every async method call is implicitly added to a global mutable queue. It's a side effect to some implicit context. For better or worse, that's not Rust's style.
Rust is not a framework. It makes sense that C# provides a default event loop. It also provides a great garbage collector! Lots of things that come standard in other languages are optional libraries in Rust.
Consider this simple pseudo-JavaScript code that fetches some data, processes it, fetches some more data based on the previous step, summarises it, and then prints a result:
getData(url)
.then(response -> parseObjects(response.data))
.then(data -> findAll(data, 'foo'))
.then(foos -> getWikipediaPagesFor(foos))
.then(sumPages)
.then(sum -> console.log("sum is: ", sum));
In async/await form, that's:
async {
let response = await getData(url);
let objects = parseObjects(response.data);
let foos = findAll(objects, 'foo');
let pages = await getWikipediaPagesFor(foos);
let sum = sumPages(pages);
console.log("sum is: ", sum);
}
It introduces a lot of single-use variables and is arguably worse than the original version with promises. So why bother?
Consider this change, where the variables response and objects are needed later on in the computation:
async {
let response = await getData(url);
let objects = parseObjects(response.data);
let foos = findAll(objects, 'foo');
let pages = await getWikipediaPagesFor(foos);
let sum = sumPages(pages, objects.length);
console.log("sum is: ", sum, " and status was: ", response.status);
}
And try to rewrite it in the original form with promises:
getData(url)
.then(response -> Promise.resolve(parseObjects(response.data))
.then(objects -> Promise.resolve(findAll(objects, 'foo'))
.then(foos -> getWikipediaPagesFor(foos))
.then(pages -> sumPages(pages, objects.length)))
.then(sum -> console.log("sum is: ", sum, " and status was: ", response.status)));
Each time you need to refer back to a previous result, you need to nest the entire structure one level deeper. This can quickly become very difficult to read and maintain, but the async/await version does not suffer from this problem.