To execute operations on a background thread and avoid blocking the UI in a WPF application, I often find myself writing this pattern:
async {
// some code on the UI thread
let uiThread = SynchronizationContext.Current
do! Async.SwitchToThreadPool()
let! result = // some Async<'t>
do! Async.SwitchToContext uiThread
// do things with the result if it wasn't () all along
}
Am I doing this right at all? Is this idiomatic? Should it be done differently?
If this is correct, of course I would prefer not to have to do it like that all the time - is there a built-in shorter way to achieve the same thing? None of the existing Async functions appears to do something like that.
If not, does it make sense to just turn the above code into a function?
let onThreadPool operation =
async {
let context = SynchronizationContext.Current
do! Async.SwitchToThreadPool()
let! result = operation
do! Async.SwitchToContext context
return result
}
That adds another level of async { } nesting - can this cause issues at "some" point?
What you're doing here definitely makes sense. One useful operation here is Async.StartImmediate, which starts the async workflow on the current thread. If you call this from the UI thread, this guarantees that the workflow will also start on the UI thread and so you can capture the synchronization context inside the workflow.
The other trick is that many built-in asynchronous F# operations automatically jump back to the original synchronization context (those that are created using Async.FromContinuations, including e.g. AsyncDownloadString), so when you're calling one of those, you do not even need to explicitly jump back to the original synchronization context.
But for other asynchronous operations (and for non-async operations that you want to run in the background), your onThreadPool function looks like a great way of doing this.
#random-dev is right capturing the context must happen outside the workflow
let onThreadPool operation =
let context = SynchronizationContext.Current
async {
do! Async.SwitchToThreadPool()
let! result = operation
do! Async.SwitchToContext context
return result
}
Related
Using the futures crate.
I have a vec of futures which return a bool and I want to wait specifically for the future that returns true.
consider the following pool of futures.
async fn async_function(guess: u8) -> bool {
let random_wait = rand::thread_rng().gen_range(0..2);
std::thread::sleep(std::time::Duration::from_secs(random_wait));
println!("Running guess {guess}");
guess == 231
}
fn main() {
let mut pool: Vec<impl Future<Output = bool>> = vec![];
for guess in 0..=255 {
pool.push(async_function(guess));
}
}
How do I wait for the futures in the vec?
Is it possible to wait until only one future returns true?
Can I identify the value of guess for the future that returns true?
I'm new to async rust, so I've been looking at the async-book.
From there, these are the options I've considered:
join! waits until all threads are done, so that doesn't work for me since I want to drop the remaining futures.
select! doesn't seem to be an option, because I need to specify the specific future in the select block and I'm not about to make 255 line select.
try_join! is tempting me to break semantics and have my async_function return Err(guess)so that it causes the try_join to exit and return the value I want.
I tried using async_fn(guess).boxed.into_stream() and then using select_all from futures::stream but it doesn't seem to run concurrently. I see my async functions running in order.
Ok, my thinking of futures was wrong. I knew that they weren't executed immediately, but I wasn't using the executors correctly from the futures crate.
Here's what I've got that seems to work.
let thread_pool = ThreadPool::new().unwrap();
let mut pool = vec![];
for guess in 0..=255 {
let thread = thread_pool.spawn_with_handle(async_fn(guess)).expect("Failed to spawn thread");
pool.push(thread.into_stream());
}
let stream = block_on_stream(futures::stream::select_all(pool));
for value in stream {
println!("Got value {value}");
}
the thread pool executor is what creates the separate threads needed to run. Without this my application was single threaded so no matter what I tried, it would only run functions one at a time, not concurrently.
This way I spawn each request into the thread pool. The thread pool appears to spawn 4 background threads. By pushing them all into a stream, using select_all, and iterating over the stream, my main thread blocks until a new value is available.
There's always 4 workers and the thread pool is scheduling them in the order they were requested like a queue. This is perfect.
I just started learning asynchronous Rust, so this is propably not a difficult question to answer, however, I am scratching my head here.
I am not trying to run tasks in parallel yet, only trying to get them to run concurrently.
According to the guide at https://rust-lang.github.io/async-book/,
The futures::join macro makes it possible to wait for multiple different futures to complete while executing them all concurrently.
So when I create 2 Futures, I should be able to "await" both of them at once. It also states that
Whereas calling a blocking function in a synchronous method would block the whole thread, blocked Futures will yield control of the thread, allowing other Futures to run.
From what I understand here, if I await multiple Futures with join!, should the first one be blocked, the second one will start running.
So I made a very simple example where I created 2 async fns and tried to join! both, making sure the first one gets blocked. I used a mpsc::channel for the blocking, since the docs stated that thread::sleep() should not be used in async fns and that recv()
will always block the current thread if there is no data available
However, the behavior is not what I expected, as calling the blocking function will not yield control of the thread, allowing the other Future to run, like I would expect from the second quote I provided. Instead, it will just wait untill it is no longer blocked, finish the first Future and only then start the second. Pretty much as if they were synchronous and I would have just called one after the other.
My complete example code:
use std::{thread::{self}, sync::{mpsc::{self, Sender, Receiver}}, time::Duration};
use futures::{executor}; //added futures = "0.3" in cargo.toml dependencies
fn main(){
let fut = main_async();
executor::block_on(fut);
}
async fn main_async(){
let (sender, receiver) = mpsc::channel();
let thread_handle = std::thread::spawn(move || { //this thread is just here so the f1 function gets blocked by something and can later resume
wait_send_function(sender);
});
let f1 = f1(receiver);
let f2 = f2();
futures::join!(f1, f2);
thread_handle.join().unwrap();
}
fn wait_send_function(sender: Sender<i32>){
thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(5000));
sender.send(1234).unwrap();
}
async fn f1(receiver: Receiver<i32>){
println!("starting f1");
let new_nmbr = receiver.recv().unwrap(); //I would expect f2 to start now, since this is blocking
println!("Received nmbr is: {}", new_nmbr);
}
async fn f2(){
println!("starting f2");
}
And the output is simply:
starting f1
Received nmbr is: 1234
starting f2
My question is what am I missing here, why does f2 only start after f1 is completed and what would I need to do to get the behavior I want (completing f2 first if f1 is blocked and then waiting for f1)?
Maybe the book is a little misleading, but when it refers to "a blocked future", it does not mean in the sense of blocking synchronous code (if that was the case, there would be no problem to use std::thread::sleep()), but rather, it means that the future is waiting to be polled by the executor.
Thus, std::mpsc that blocks the thread will not have the desired effect (definitely not on a single-threaded executor like future's, but it's a bad idea on multi-threaded executors too). Use futures::channel::mpsc and everything will work.
Async.SwitchSynchronizationContext allows an Async action to switch to running within a given SynchronizationContext. I would like to synchronously begin an Async computation within a SynchronizationContext, rather than switching inside the Async.
This would ensure that Async actions are run in the desired order, and that they are not run concurrently.
Is this possible? The documentation for Async.SwitchSynchronizationContext mentions using SynchronizationContext.Post, but no such functionality is exposed for Async.
I have not tested this, but I think the easiest way to achieve what you want is to combine the SynchronizationContext.Send method (mentioned in the comments) with the Async.StartImmediate operation. The former lets you start some work synchronously in the synchronization context. The latter lets you start an async workflow in the current context.
If you combine the two, you can define a helper that starts a function in a given synchronization context and, in this function, immediately starts an async workflow:
let startInContext (sync:SynchronizationContext) work =
SynchronizationContext.Current.Send((fun _ ->
Async.StartImmediate(work)), null)
For example:
async {
printfn "Running on the given sync context"
do! Async.Sleep(1000)
printfn "Should be back on the original sync context" }
|> startInContext SynchronizationContext.Current
Boost's asio library allows the serialisation of asynchronous code in the following way. Handlers to asynchronous functions such as those which read from a stream, may be associated to a strand. A strand is associated with an "IO context". An IO context owns a thread pool. However many threads in the pool, it is guaranteed that no two handlers associated with the same strand are run concurrently. This makes it possible, for instance, to implement a state machine as if it were single-threaded, where all handlers for that machine serialise over a private strand.
I have been trying to figure out how this might be done with F#'s Async. I could not find any way to make sure that chosen sets of Async processes never run concurrently. Can anyone suggest how to do this?
It would be useful to know what is the use case that you are trying to implement. I don't think F# async has anything that would directly map to strands and you would likely use different techniques for implementing different things that might all be implemented using strands.
For example, if you are concerend with reading data from a stream, F# async block lets you write code that is asynchronous but sequential. The following runs a single logical process (which might be moved between threads of a thread pool when you wait using let!):
let readTest () = async {
let fs = File.OpenRead(#"C:\Temp\test.fs")
let buffer = Array.zeroCreate 10
let mutable read = 1
while read <> 0 do
let! r = fs.AsyncRead(buffer, 0, 10)
printfn "Read: %A" buffer.[0 .. r-1]
read <- r }
readTest() |> Async.Start
If you wanted to deal with events that occur without any control (i.e. push based rather than pull based), for example, when you cannot ask the system to read next buffer of data, you could serialize the events using a MailboxProcessor. The following sends two messages to the agent almost at the same time, but they are processed sequentially, with 1 second delay:
let agent = MailboxProcessor.Start(fun inbox -> async {
while true do
let! msg = inbox.Receive()
printfn "Got: %s" msg
do! Async.Sleep(1000)
})
agent.Post("hello")
agent.Post("world")
I'm trying to call an asynchronous method from a synchronous method like below:
1. public List<Words> Get(string code)
{
Task<List<Words>> taskWords = GetWordsAsync(code);
var result = taskWords.Result;
return result;
}
private async Task<List<Words>> GetWordsAsync(string code)
{
var result = await codeService.GetWordsByCodeAsync(code);
return result;
}
But this lead to a deadlock, await is not getting the results from the method - GetWordsByCodeAsync
I've done a bit of research and came to know that if we are calling an async method from synchronous method we should use Task.Run
When I changed the code like below, it worked:
2. public List<Words> Get(string code)
{
Task<List<Words>> taskWords = Task.Run<List<Words>>(async () => await GetWordsAsync(code);
var result = taskWords.Result;
return result;
}
private async Task<List<Words>> GetWordsAsync(string code)
{
var result = await codeService.GetWordsByCodeAsync(code);
return result;
}
But I didn't get the context, why it caused a deadlock for 1st way and 2nd one worked fine.
I'd like to know:
What's the difference between two ways?
Is second one the correct way to call async method from synchronous method?
Will using the second method also causes a deadlock at some point of time if the result is large? or is it fail proof(safe) method to use?
Also, please suggest any best practices to better do it as I have to do 5 async calls from a synchronous method - just like taskWords, I have taskSentences etc.,
Note: I don't want to change everything to async. I want to call async method from synchronous method.
I don't want to change everything to async. I want to call async method from synchronous method.
From a technical standpoint, this doesn't make sense. Asynchronous means it doesn't block the calling thread; synchronous means it does. So you understand that if you block on asynchronous code, then it's no longer truly asynchronous? The only benefit to asynchronous code is that it doesn't block the calling thread, so if you block on the asynchronous code, you're removing all the benefit of asynchrony in the first place.
The only good answer is to go async all the way. There are some rare scenarios where that's not possible, though.
What's the difference between two ways?
The first one executes the asynchronous code directly and then blocks the calling thread, waiting for it to finish. You're running into a deadlock because the asynchronous code is attempting to resume on the calling context (which await does by default), and presumably you're running this code on a UI thread or in an ASP.NET Classic request context, which only allow one thread in the context at a time. There's already a thread in the context (the one blocking, waiting for the task to finish), so the async method cannot resume and actually finish.
The second one executes the asynchronous code on a thread pool thread and then blocks the calling thread, waiting for it to finish. There is no deadlock here because the asynchronous code resumes on its calling context, which is a thread pool context, so it just continues executing on any available thread pool thread.
Is second one the correct way to call async method from synchronous method?
There is no "correct" way to do this. There are a variety of hacks, each of which has different drawbacks, and none of which work in every situation.
Will using the second method also causes a deadlock at some point of time if the result is large? or is it fail proof(safe) method to use?
It will not deadlock. What it does, though, is execute GetWordsAsync on a thread pool thread. As long as GetWordsAsync can be run on a thread pool thread, then it will work.
Also, please suggest any best practices to better do it
I have written an article on the subject. In your case, if GetWordsAsync is safe to call on a thread pool thread, then the "blocking thread pool hack" is acceptable.
Note that this is not the best solution; the best solution is to go async all the way. But the blocking thread pool hack is an acceptable hack if you must call asynchronous code from synchronous code (again, it's "acceptable" only if GetWordsAsync is safe to call on a thread pool thread).
I would recommend using GetAwaiter().GetResult() rather than Result, in order to avoid the AggregateException wrapper on error. Also, the explicit type arguments are unnecessary, and you can elide async/await in this case:
var taskWords = Task.Run(() => GetWordsAsync(code));
return taskWords.GetAwaiter().GetResult();