I have a small program using the producer/consumer pattern in F#. I want to start 1 producer, then 8 consumers, wait for the producer then wait for the consumers and end the program.
The code that sets this in motion is:
async {
let! p = Async.StartChild producer
let maxConcurrent = 8
let consumers = List<Async<unit>>()
for _ in 0 .. maxConcurrent - 1 do
let! c = Async.StartChild consumer
consumers.Add(c)
do! p
for i in 0 .. maxConcurrent - 1 do
do! consumers[i]
}
|> Async.RunSynchronously
While this works it feels wrong to use the mutable List from System.Collections.Generic instead of just F# list. But I cannot generate the list of Async needed using List. I have tried:
let consumers2 = List.init 8 (fun _ -> async {
let! c = Async.StartChild consumer
return c
})
But this now wraps it in async again, so it becomes a list<async<async<unit>>>, if it's instead return! then the app hangs (I'm guessing because I'm not awaiting the task that should start the Task instead awaiting also the task that awaits finalization)
Full code is available here
I think Async.Parallel will flatten the asyncs the way you want. The following seems to work correctly for me:
async {
// I need the producer to run in it's own thread, not shared by the threadpool, because I rely on the consumer being allowed to block the thread with .Take
let! p = Async.StartChild producer
let maxConcurrent = 8
let! consumers =
List.init maxConcurrent (fun _ ->
Async.StartChild consumer)
|> Async.Parallel
do! p
for c in consumers do
do! c
}
|> Async.RunSynchronously
Related
I have a function that I want to run 5 at a time from a chunked list and then wait a second so as not to hit an Api rate limit. I know the code is wrong but it is as far as I have got.
let ordersChunked = mOrders |> List.chunkBySize 5
for fiveOrders in ordersChunked do
let! tasks =
fiveOrders
|> List.map (fun (order) -> trackAndShip(order) )
|> Async.Parallel
Async.Sleep(1000) |> ignore
trackAndShip is an async function not a task and I get a little confused about the two.
Some of the answers I have read add |> Async.RunSynchronously to the end of it - and I do that at the top level but I don't feel it is good practice here ( and I would need to convert async to Task? )
This is probably a very simple answer if you are familiar with async / tasks but I am still "finding my feet" in this area.
Unlike C#'s tasks, Async computation do not start when they are created and you have to explicitly start them. Furthermore, even if you would start the Async operation, it won't do what you expect because the sleep will not execute because you just ignore it.
From the let! in your example code, I'm going to assume you're the code snippet is inside a computation expression. So the following may be what you want
let asyncComputation =
async {
let ordersChunked = [] |> List.chunkBySize 5
for fiveOrders in ordersChunked do
let! tasks =
fiveOrders
|> List.map (fun (order) -> trackAndShip(order) )
|> Async.Parallel
do! Async.Sleep(1000) // Note the do! here, without it your sleep will be ignored
}
Async.RunSynchronously asyncComputation
Note that the Async.Sleep is now chained into the CE by using do!. The Async.RunSynchronously call is one way to start the async computation: it runs the async operation and blocks the current thread while waiting for the async operation's result. There are many other ways of running it described in the documentation.
In JavaScript, there is a function called Promise.race that takes a list of promises and returns a new promise that completes when any of the input promises completes.
See: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Promise/race
F# has Async.Parallel, which completes when all of the input asyncs have completed, but it does not seem to have an equivalent for any (such as Async.Race).
How can I write this in F#?
You could use tasks.
Something like this:
let race xs =
xs
|> Seq.map Async.StartAsTask
|> Task.WhenAny
|> Async.AwaitTask
Using Async.Choice from FSharp.Control:
let race xs =
async {
let! first =
xs
|> Seq.map (fun task -> async {
let! x = task
return Some x
})
|> Async.Choice
return Option.get first
}
I have the following code in F# 4.0
let processEscalation escalationAction (escalationEvents:UpdateCmd.Record list) =
printf "%A" Environment.NewLine
printf "Started %A" escalationAction
escalationEvents
|> List.iter ( fun x ->
printf "%A" Environment.NewLine
printf "escalation %A for with action: %A" x.incident_id escalationAction
service.PostAction(new Models.Action(x.incident_id, escalationAction, "escalated"))
|> Async.AwaitTask
|> ignore)
let ComposeEscalation() =
let escalationlevels = ["ESC1 REACHED"; "ESC2 REACHED"; "ESC3 REACHED"]
escalationlevels
|> List.map getEscalationEvents
|> List.iteri (fun i x -> processEscalation escalationlevels.[i] x)
where the following line is a call to a C# async method that that returns Task
service.PostAction(new Models.Action(x.incident_id, escalationAction, "escalated"))
The compose escalation method calls the processEscalation three times.
However, the second call starts before the first call is complete.
How can I make sure that the the last line, list.iteri awaits and processes them sequentially?
Perhaps the processEscalation should be in an async computation expression?
What Async.AwaitTask does is that it returns an Async computation that can be used to wait for the task to complete. In your case, you never do anything with it, so the loop just proceeds to the next iteration.
You want something like this:
service.PostAction(new Models.Action(x.incident_id, escalationAction, "escalated"))
|> Async.AwaitTask
|> Async.RunSynchronously
|> ignore
This should have the effect you expect, though certainly there are nicer, more composable ways of expressing such logic.
Edit: What I meant was something like this, a counterpart to the core Async.Parallel function:
module Async =
let sequential (asyncs: seq<Async<'t>>) : Async<'t []> =
let rec loop acc remaining =
async {
match remaining with
| [] -> return Array.ofList (List.rev acc)
| x::xs ->
let! res = x
return! loop (res::acc) xs
}
loop [] (List.ofSeq asyncs)
Then you can do something along these lines:
escalationEvents
// a collection of asyncs - note that the task won't start until the async is ran
|> List.map (fun x ->
async {
let task =
service.PostAction(new Models.Action(x.incident_id, escalationAction, "escalated"))
return! Async.AwaitTask task
})
// go from a collection of asyncs into an async of a collection
|> Async.sequential
// you don't care about the result, so ignore it
|> Async.Ignore
// now that you have your async, you need to run it in a way that makes sense
// in your context - Async.Start could be another option.
|> Async.RunSynchronously
The upside here is that instead of bundling everything into a single loop, you've split the computation into well-delimited stages. It's easy to follow and refactor (e.g. if you need to process those events in parallel instead, you just switch out one step in the pipeline).
I've got an agent which I set up to do some database work in the background. The implementation looks something like this:
let myAgent = MailboxProcessor<AgentData>.Start(fun inbox ->
let rec loop =
async {
let! data = inbox.Receive()
use conn = new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection("...")
data |> List.map (fun e -> // Some transforms)
|> List.sortBy (fun (_,_,t,_,_) -> t)
|> List.iter (fun (a,b,c,d,e) ->
try
... // Do the database work
with e -> Log.error "Yikes")
return! loop
}
loop)
With this I discovered that if this was called several times in some amount of time I would start getting SqlConnection objects piling up and not being disposed, and eventually I would run out of connections in the connection pool (I don't have exact metrics on how many "several" is, but running an integration test suite twice in a row could always cause the connection pool to run dry).
If I change the use to a using then things are disposed properly and I don't have a problem:
let myAgent = MailboxProcessor<AgentData>.Start(fun inbox ->
let rec loop =
async {
let! data = inbox.Receive()
using (new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection("...")) <| fun conn ->
data |> List.map (fun e -> // Some transforms)
|> List.sortBy (fun (_,_,t,_,_) -> t)
|> List.iter (fun (a,b,c,d,e) ->
try
... // Do the database work
with e -> Log.error "Yikes")
return! loop
}
loop)
It seems that the Using method of the AsyncBuilder is not properly calling its finally function for some reason, but it's not clear why. Does this have something to do with how I've written my recursive async expression, or is this some obscure bug? And does this suggest that utilizing use within other computation expressions could produce the same sort of behavior?
This is actually the expected behavior - although not entirely obvious!
The use construct disposes of the resource when the execution of the asynchronous workflow leaves the current scope. This is the same as the behavior of use outside of asynchronous workflows. The problem is that recursive call (outside of async) or recursive call using return! (inside async) does not mean that you are leaving the scope. So in this case, the resource is disposed of only after the recursive call returns.
To test this, I'll use a helper that prints when disposed:
let tester () =
{ new System.IDisposable with
member x.Dispose() = printfn "bye" }
The following function terminates the recursion after 10 iterations. This means that it keeps allocating the resources and disposes of all of them only after the entire workflow completes:
let rec loop(n) = async {
if n < 10 then
use t = tester()
do! Async.Sleep(1000)
return! loop(n+1) }
If you run this, it will run for 10 seconds and then print 10 times "bye" - this is because the allocated resources are still in scope during the recursive calls.
In your sample, the using function delimits the scope more explicitly. However, you can do the same using nested asynchronous workflow. The following only has the resource in scope when calling the Sleep method and so it disposes of it before the recursive call:
let rec loop(n) = async {
if n < 10 then
do! async {
use t = tester()
do! Async.Sleep(1000) }
return! loop(n+1) }
Similarly, when you use for loop or other constructs that restrict the scope, the resource is disposed immediately:
let rec loop(n) = async {
for i in 0 .. 10 do
use t = tester()
do! Async.Sleep(1000) }
Is there any primitive in the langage to compose async1 then async2, akin to what parallel does for parallel execution planning ?
to further clarify, I have 2 async computations
let toto1 = Async.Sleep(1000)
let toto2 = Async.Sleep(1000)
I would like to create a new async computation made of the sequential composition of toto1 and toto2
let toto = Async.Sequential [|toto1; toto2|]
upon start, toto would run toto1 then toto2, and would end after 2000 time units
The async.Bind operation is the basic primitive that asynchronous workflows provide for sequential composition - in the async block syntax, that corresponds to let!. You can use that to express sequential composition of two computations (as demonstrated by Daniel).
However, if you have an operation <|> that Daniel defined, than that's not expressive enough to implement async.Bind, because when you compose things sequentially using async.Bind, the second computation may depend on the result of the first one. The <e2> may use v1:
async.Bind(<e1>, fun v1 -> <e2>)
If you were writing <e1> <|> <e2> then the two operations have to be independent. This is a reason why the libraries are based on Bind - because it is more expressive form of sequential composition than the one you would get if you were following the structure of Async.Parallel.
If you want something that behaves like Async.Parallel and takes an array, then the easiest option is to implement that imperatively using let! in a loop (but you could use recursion and lists too):
let Sequential (ops:Async<'T>[]) = async {
let res = Array.zeroCreate ops.Length
for i in 0 .. ops.Length - 1 do
let! value = ops.[i]
res.[i] <- value
return res }
I'm not sure what you mean by "primitive." Async.Parallel is a function. Here are a few ways to run two asyncs:
In parallel:
Async.Parallel([|async1; async2|])
or
async {
let! child = Async.StartChild async2
let! result1 = child
let! result2 = async1
return [|result1; result2|]
}
Sequentially:
async {
let! result1 = async1
let! result2 = async2
return [|result1; result2|]
}
You could return tuples in the last two. I kept the return types the same as the first one.
I would say let! and do! in an async { } block is as close as you'll get to using a primitive for this.
EDIT
If all this nasty syntax is getting to you, you could define a combinator:
let (<|>) async1 async2 =
async {
let! r1 = async1
let! r2 = async2
return r1, r2
}
and then do:
async1 <|> async2 |> Async.RunSynchronously