One at a time
Code is executed to achieve a purpose. Usually it's run as a series of steps, eventually leading to a final result. Each of the steps take some time to execute, and running them synchronously, one after the other, can take a significant amount of time.
Say you're a Doctor of Evil - a Dr. Evil if you will. And you want to run a successful criminal enterprise to take over the world; maybe you're looking to make One Million Dollars... Would it be the most effective way to run all of your plans one after the other?
Running an Evil Empire
The first thing you'll need, as an evil mastermind, is of course an Evil Lair.
-
Task.Delay(x)
gives a logical delay ofx
milliseconds without blocking the current thread
public static void BuildAnEvilLair()
{
await Task.Delay(5000);
Console.WriteLine("Evil Lair Built!");
}
After you build your lair, you're going to need to hire some henchman.
public static void HireSomeHenchman()
{
await Task.Delay(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Henchman Hired!");
}
And of course, you'll need to create a mini clone of yourself.
public static void MakeMiniClone()
{
await Task.Delay(3000);
Console.WriteLine("Mini Clone Created!");
}
Once all of this is in place, you can start working on your Super Evil Plan!
public static void SuperEvilPlan()
{
await Task.Delay(4000);
Console.WriteLine("Super Evil Plan Completed!");
}
And let's not forget threatening world leaders with your Super Evil Plan and ransoming One Million Dollars.
public static int MakeOneMillionDollars()
{
await Task.Delay(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Million Dollars Made!");
return 1000000;
}
Finally, when everything has been completed, we can achieve World Domination.
public static void WorldDomination()
{
await Task.Delay(6000);
Console.WriteLine("World Domination Achieved!");
}
Putting our plan together,
BuildAnEvilLair();
HireSomeHenchman();
MakeMiniClone();
SuperEvilPlan();
var money = MakeOneMillionDollars();
WorldDomination();
which takes 22 000ms (or 22 seconds) synchronously.
All at once
Many of the steps in such a synchronous plan can be executed in parallel, asynchronously. So how is this done?
First, all the methods will be made asynchronous with the async
descriptor, and their executing code will be awaited.
Awaiting asynchronous code, the awaiting code is processed asynchronously, and the code following the await
is added as a continuation to the await
. The continuation will be run after the code being awaited has run its duration and been successfully executed.
public static async Task BuildAnEvilLair()
{
await Task.Delay(5000);
Console.WriteLine("Evil Lair Built!");
}
public static async Task HireSomeHenchman()
{
await Task.Delay(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Henchman Hired!");
}
public static async Task MakeMiniClone()
{
await Task.Delay(3000);
Console.WriteLine("Mini Clone Created!");
}
public static async Task SuperEvilPlan()
{
await Task.Delay(4000);
Console.WriteLine("Super Evil Plan Completed!");
}
public static async Task<int> MakeOneMillionDollars()
{
await Task.Delay(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Million Dollars Made!");
return 1000000;
}
public static async Task WorldDomination()
{
await Task.Delay(6000);
Console.WriteLine("World Domination Achieved!");
}
With output
Million Dollars Made!
Super Evil Plan Completed!
Mini Clone Created!
Evil Lair Built!
Henchman Hired!
World Domination Achieved!
Clearly this is a mess. Everything is happening at once. It's really fast - only dependent on the slowest method (6000ms). It's obvious that some calls are dependent on others. Now we need to synchronise them with each other.
Effectively Asynchronous
So, as an Evil Mastermind, which tasks would you run and in which order?
First, we need an evil lair. After that we can hire some henchman and create a mini clone of ourselves. Then we can come up with a Super Evil Plan, after which we can make One Million Dollars and achieve World Domination.
Changing the executing code we can achieve this by using the right mix of await
and Task.WaitAll
. Task.WaitAll
fires off all the tasks asynchronously and finishes awaiting those tasks once all the tasks have completed - so the Task.WaitAll
takes as long as the longest task it's awaiting.
Let's try this again.
// First we need an Evil Lair
await BuildAnEvilLair();
// Next, hire Henchman and create a Clone (asynchronously)
Task.WaitAll(HireSomeHenchman(), MakeMiniClone());
// Now, come up with the evil plan
await SuperEvilPlan();
// And finally, make One Million Dollars (and achieve World Domination)
Task.WaitAll(MakeOneMillionDollars(), WorldDomination());
With output,
Evil Lair Built!
Henchman Hired!
Mini Clone Created!
Super Evil Plan Completed!
Million Dollars Made!
World Domination Achieved!
Taking a cool 18 000ms (18 seconds). 4 seconds less than the synchronous implementation.
So remember, next time you want to become an Evil Genius consider asynchronous execution and some time. If it's up to those darn super spies, every second counts!
Top comments (31)
I understand why you are using Thread.Sleep (to mimic doing some CPU intensive work) but I fear it will also give beginners the wrong impression about using Thread.Sleep in tasks to delay work. I think instead of ...
If you need to delay before doing something in a task ...
If you Thread.Sleep in many running tasks, performance may suffer. If you do it to excess, work may have to be queued waiting for all the sleeping threads to wake and finish executing their work. At the very worst you could get out of memory exceptions.
Like I said I understand why you chose to use Thread.Sleep for your example but beginners shouldn't think that using Thread.Sleep in tasks is good practice.
Helping others understand async/await is no mean feat. Good on you for giving it a go.
You make a good point. Awaiting a
Task.Delay
is much better -Thread.Sleep
was just used for the illustration. I'll fix it when I get the chance :)I keep reading a lot of posts when I first get into trouble. This is how I once reached this website (kodlogs.net/1/task-delay-vs-thread...) and got the desired solution. You can read this post as well as visit here. I think it will be very useful for you
If you are worried about beginners than explain them !
If you starting a new
Task.Run
or having a Task in a method without something to do after it, you don't need toasync
/await
it in the method.Example, instead of:
you can just write this:
This removes some
async
/await
overhead :)Also as already mentioned
Task.Delay
instead ofThread.Sleep
Good point, but also it should always be taken with great care in production scenarios that utilize try/catch in similar code as now you are risking of not having the exception unwrapped in the
MakeOneMillionDollars
due to not awaiting it here explicitly. But the perf tip is on point as this code will produce one compiler generated type less with its following state machine.I quote "Awaiting asynchronous code, two things happen. A thread is taken from the thread pool and allocated to the asynchronous operation".
That's just wrong and a big misunderstanding of async/await. Asynchrony doesn't need to get threads from the thread pool or otherwise.
In your case it just happens because you used Task.Run but that's a edge case and actually not a good practice with async/await (Task.Run is more suited with TPL but you can use async/await when you combine with other asynchronous calls). Most asynchronous code never consumes threads.
See blog.stephencleary.com/2013/11/the...
That said I did enjoy reading the article. But that's because I'm evil!
Hi, I appreciate your comment - and you are partially correct.
It's up to the scheduler to determine if a new thread is needed. It may or may not spin up a new thread. I'll clarify it when I have a chance.
It is a bit more than that actually. Your example demonstrates parallel computation not asynchrony. Task.Run never creates asynchronous code, whether the scheduler decides to run it immediatly on the same thread, or to schedule it on a worker.
It is understandable to be confused since most of us (me included) started to use tasks when async/await got out. But the Task type was originally created for parallel computing with the TPL (hence why it is in a System.Threading sub-namespace). Asynchronous task (also called future or promise in other languages) should have used a different type but the .Net team decided to reuse Task for that purpose. It does lead to a unified model where we can combine both, but it also adds to the confusion.
I think a better example would be to use sockets or file asynchronous reading/writing, which doesn't involve any threads.
Thanks for the explanation (and the link) Nicolas :) you really taught me something valuable today.
Nice one, and perhaps it's just me, but I find your lack of faith distur... No, wait, I find your usage of animated gifs disturbing. IMHO, There's way too many of them in an otherwise really good and simple (and funny! that counts!) introduction to async programming.
Thanks for the feedback - I always appreciate constructive criticism. I'll try and find a better balance for the gifs.
(voice) I appreciated the gifs.
I read this article because of the gifs 😆
The gifs made it very funny to read and learn
I feel having gifs makes it interesting for beginners and makes them wanna read it till the end. Keep it up @henrick
This is probably the first time I've fully understood async and await and the benefits it provides all while being an interesting and fun.
Thank you.
Thanks for the compliment Rob :) I really appreciate it.
I loved the article!!
I've never understood async/await until now, and had to extract all those methods to another one and had it called from Main using .Wait(). I was like "Damn, that is good use and explanation" while laughing a lot
Good article, If someone stumbles upon this and want to read more about async-await in MVC, take a look
Asynchronous programming in C# and ASP.NET MVC ( With example )
Cool!
A nice thing to know is that if the return type of a method is
Task<int>
you can return simplyint
and have .net work for you :)code4it.dev/blog/asynchronous-prog...
Task. Sleep is a synchronous thread that puts the thread to sleep so it can't be used for anything else. Task, on the other hand. Delay is an asynchronous thread that can be used to perform other tasks while it waits. Refer to this kodlogs.net/1/task-delay-vs-thread...
Brilliant work mate, good to see some genuinely good content mixed in with humour. Thanks for this.
Appreciate the positive feedback Luke! :)