SLaks.Blog

Making the world a better place, one line of code at a time

Concurrency, part 6: Easier asynchrony in C# with await

Posted on Thursday, June 11, 2015

Last time, I described more advanced patterns for complicated workflows involving asynchronous operations. These patterns can be annoying to write. However, modern compilers can bear the brunt of this complexity, allowing you to write code as if the operations were synchronous, then letting the compiler transform your code into mes promise chains.

C# 5 introduces this with its flagship new async / await keywords. However, the wealth of possibilities opened by this feature has left many developers confused about when to make async methods and when not to.

Non-blocking IO

The async keyword does not create asynchrony; instead, it allows you to call existing asynchronous methods easily. If your code isn’t calling any existing *Async() methods (which return Task or Task<T>), async won’t do any you good. However, if you have the option of calling synchronous or asynchronous versions of an operation (eg, StreamWriter.WriteLine() vs. StreamWriter.WriteLineAsync()), you can use await to switch your code to use asynchronous operations, gaining all of the scalability benefits of non-blocking IO without any of the complexity.

Where do asynchronous operations come from?

The point of an asynchronous operation is to wait for something to happen without wasting any threads. For example, if you’re waiting for a web service to send you a reply, you can use an asynchronous HTTP client to wait for that reply and release the thread you were running on to do other things while you wait. To make this happen, the operating system provides an asynchronous networking API that will wake up and call your asynchronous continuation when a response arrives from the network card.

In other words, an operation can be made asynchronous if it simply waits for something to happen elsewhere, rather than actively computing something. Operations like reading or writing from a hard disk or network, or waiting 5 seconds, are all inherently asynchronous; they do not involve any direct work beyond sending a request to the hard disk or network card, or setting a timer interrupt.

By contrast, operations like adding a million numbers, or encrypting data, are not asynchronous. They may take a long time, but all of that time is spent actively computing something with the CPU, so you can’t release your thread and wait for something to happen on its own. (if you have a separate chip to perform cryptographic operations, this is not true)

For more details about this distinction, see part 1 of this series.

Therefore, you cannot use C#’s async keyword to create a new asynchronous operation; you can only create an asynchronous operation if you have some external event to wait for.

So what are async methods good for?

async methods are good for composing existing asynchronous operations – calling multiple operations in sequence and using the results. All of the complex promise code described in my previous post can be implemented much more easily using await.

For example, if you wanted to find out which of two places was warmer, you could write the following asynchronous code by hand:

var client = new HttpClient();

var placeTasks = new[] {
	client.GetAsync("https://api.weather.example.com/Locations/" + Uri.EscapeUriString("New York, NY")),
	client.GetAsync("https://api.weather.example.com/Locations/" + Uri.EscapeUriString("Seattle, WA"))
};
	
	// Wait for both tasks to finish - for the response headers to start arriving
Task.WhenAll(placeTasks).ContinueWith(task =>
	task.Result.Select(response => response.Content.ReadAsStreamAsync())
	// Wait for the response bodies
).ContinueWith(tasks => {
	var xmlBodies = tasks.Result.Select(t => XDocument.Parse(t.Result));
	var hottest = xmlBodies
		.Select(x => (decimal)x.Descendants("Current").Single().Element("Temperature"))
		.Max();
});

Using await makes this much simpler:

// Wait for both tasks to finish - for the responses to start arriving
var responses = await Task.WhenAll(placeTasks);

// Wait for the response bodies
var bodies = await Task.WhenAll(responses.Select(response => response.Content.ReadAsStreamAsync()));

var xmlBodies = bodies.Select(t => XDocument.Parse(t.Result));
var hottest = xmlBodies
	.Select(x => (decimal)x.Descendants("Current").Single().Element("Temperature"))
	.Max();

Behind the scenes, the compiler will transform async methods into a series of promise callbacks, storing your local variables in a mutable closure class. (It’s actually more complicated than that; Jon Skeet explained exactly how it works in his Eduasync blog posts)

This feature is most helpful for more complicated code, especially when consuming operations in sequence. For example, the complicated reduce() loop (from my previous blog post) to asynchronously process an array of items in sequence becomes much simpler:

foreach (var item in items) {
	await SomeFunctionAsync(item);
}

To gather the results, you can simply add them to a list:

var results = new List<T>();
foreach (var item in items) {
	results.Add(await SomeFunctionAsync(item));
}

# Pitfalls

The most common mistake with async methods is async void. An async method is required to return one of void, Task, or Task<T>. If your function doesn’t return a value, it can be tempting to make it return async void. The problem with this option is that it makes it impossible for the caller to find out when the asynchronous portion of the method is finished, or to handle any errors that are thrown asynchronously. As I explained in part 2, in order to wait for an asynchronous operation to finish, it must return a promise.

The only correct place to use async void is event handlers. Since the code that raised the event doesn’t care when you finish handling it, there is nothing wrong with hiding the promise from it. (In fact, event handlers must be async void, since event delegates are declared as returning void.)

Categories: async, promises, multi-threading, concepts, C# Tweet this post

comments powered by Disqus