I need to fetch some data using multiple calls. My code is synchronous, and I can call a synchronous getData method (which makes a network request) multiple times to get everything. To improve performance, I want to execute all these calls concurrently using coroutines, but I don't know if this code is really doing what I want it to.
My relevant Kotlin code looks roughly like:
fun getAllData(): List<Data> {
val coros = listof(1, 2, 3, 4).map {
num -> GlobalScope.async(Dispatchers.IO) { getData(num) }
}
return runBlocking { coros.awaitAll() }
}
I can edit this code, but I cannot edit the getData method.
Is this code running the getData calls concurrently? I'm suspicious that wrapping this in an async block doesn't solve the issue as presumably somewhere inside getData I need to await/return control back to the async block to continue to the next call, which I am not doing since getData is synchronous.
If this isn't running concurrently, is there any way I can make the calls behave asynchronously? Would the overhead of threads typically be worth the time saved in making multiple concurrent network requests?
Related
Using ktor HTTP server, I would like to launch a long-running task and immediately return a message to the calling client. The task is self-sufficient, it's capable of updating its status in a db, and a separate HTTP call returns its status (i.e. for a progress bar).
What I cannot seem to do is just launch the task in the background and respond. All my attempts at responding wait for the long-running task to complete. I have experimented with many configurations of runBlocking and coroutineScope but none are working for me.
// ktor route
get("/launchlongtask") {
val text: String = (myFunction(call.request.queryParameters["loops"]!!.toInt()))
println("myFunction returned")
call.respondText(text)
}
// in reality, this function is complex... the caller (route) is not able to
// determine the response string, it must be done here
suspend fun myFunction(loops : Int) : String {
runBlocking {
launch {
// long-running task, I want to launch it and move on
(1..loops).forEach {
println("this is loop $it")
delay(2000L)
// updates status in db here
}
}
println("returning")
// this string must be calculated in this function (or a sub-function)
return#runBlocking "we just launched $loops loops"
}
return "never get here" // actually we do get here in a coroutineScope
}
output:
returning
this is loop 1
this is loop 2
this is loop 3
this is loop 4
myFunction returned
expected:
returning
myFunction returned
(response sent)
this is loop 1
this is loop 2
this is loop 3
this is loop 4
Just to explain the issue with the code in your question, the problem is using runBlocking. This is meant as the bridge between the synchronous world and the async world of coroutines and
"the name of runBlocking means that the thread that runs it ... gets blocked for the duration of the call, until all the coroutines inside runBlocking { ... } complete their execution."
(from the Coroutine docs).
So in your first example, myFunction won't complete until your coroutine containing loop completes.
The correct approach is what you do in your answer, using CoroutineScope to launch your long-running task. One thing to point out is that you are just passing in a Job() as the CoroutineContext parameter to the CoroutineScope constructor. The CoroutineContext contains multiple things; Job, CoroutineDispatcher, CoroutineExceptionHandler... In this case, because you don't specifiy a CoroutineDispatcher it will use CoroutineDispatcher.Default. This is intended for CPU-intensive tasks and will be limited to "the number of CPU cores (with a minimum of 2)". This may or may not be want you want. An alternative is CoroutineDispatcher.IO - which has a default of 64 threads.
inspired by this answer by Lucas Milotich, I utilized CoroutineScope(Job()) and it seems to work:
suspend fun myFunction(loops : Int) : String {
CoroutineScope(Job()).launch {
// long-running task, I want to launch it and move on
(1..loops).forEach {
println("this is loop $it")
delay(2000L)
// updates status in db here
}
}
println("returning")
return "we just launched $loops loops"
}
not sure if this is resource-efficient, or the preferred way to go, but I don't see a whole lot of other documentation on the topic.
I am taking my first steps in kotlin coroutines and I have a problem.
In order to create Foo and return it from a function I need to call two heavy service methods asynchronously to get some values for Foo creating. This is my code:
return runBlocking {
val xAsync = async {
service.calculateX()
}
val yAsync = async {
service.calculateY()
}
Foo(xAsync.await(), yAsync.await())
};
However, after reading logs is seems to me that calculateX() and calculateY() are called synchronously. Is my code correct?
Your code isn't perfect, but it is correct in terms of making calculateX() and calculateY() run concurrently. However, since it launches this concurrent work on the runBlocking dispatcher which is single-threaded, and since your heavyweight operations are blocking instead of suspending, they will not be parallelized.
The first observation to make is that blocking operations cannot gain anything from coroutines compared to the old-school approach with Java executors, apart from a bit simpler API.
The second observation is that you can at least make them run in parallel, each blocking its own thread, by using the IO dispatcher:
return runBlocking {
val xAsync = async(Dispatchers.IO) {
service.calculateX()
}
val yAsync = async(Dispatchers.IO) {
service.calculateY()
}
Foo(xAsync.await(), yAsync.await())
};
Compared to using the java.util.concurrent APIs, here you benefit from the library's IO dispatcher instead of having to create your own thread pool.
I'm currently writing a test-function which should run a block or (when a certain timeout is reached) throws an exception.
I was trying this with Coroutines in Kotlin but ended up with a mixture of Coroutines and CompletableFuture:
fun <T> runBlockWithTimeout(maxTimeout: Long, block: () -> T ): T {
val future = CompletableFuture<T>()
// runs the coroutine
launch { block() }
return future.get(maxTimeout, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)
}
This works, but I'm not sure if this is the intended way to solve that problem in kotlin.
I also tried other approaches:
runBlocking {
withTimeout(maxTimeout) {
block()
}
}
But this seems not to work as soon as the block calls e.g. Thread.sleep(...)
So is the CompletableFuture approach the way to go or is there a better one?
update 1
What I want to achieve:
Async Integration-Test code (like receiving data from RabbitMq) should be tested somehow like this:
var rabbitResults: List = ... // are filled async via RabbitListeners
...
waitMax(1000).toSucceed {
assertThat(rabbitResults).hasSize(1)
}
waitMax(1000).toSucceed {
assertThat(nextQueue).hasSize(3)
}
...
withTimeout { ... } is designed to cancel the ongoing operation on timeout, which is only possible if the operation in question is cancellable.
The reason it works with future.get(timeout, unit) is because it only waits with timeout. It does not actually cancel or abort in any way your background operation which still continues to execute after timeout had elapsed.
If you want to mimick similar behavior with coroutines, then you should wait with timeout, like this:
val d = async { block() } // run the block code in background
withTimeout(timeout, unit) { d.await() } // wait with timeout
It works properly because await is a cancellable function which you can verify by reading its API documentation.
However, if you want to actually cancel the ongoing operation on timeout, then then you should implement your code in asyncronous and cancellable way. Cancellation is cooperative, so, to start, the underlying library that you are using in your code has to provide asynchronous API that supports cancellation of ongoing operation.
You can read more about cancellation and timeouts in the corresponding section of the coroutines guide and watch the KotlinConf's Deep Dive into Coroutines on how to integrate coroutines with asynchronous libraries.
I have a web service in WCF that consume some external web services, so what I want to do is make this service asynchronous in order to release the thread, wait for the completion of all the external services, and then return the result to the client.
With Framework 4.0
public class MyService : IMyService
{
public IAsyncResult BeginDoWork(int count, AsyncCallback callback, object serviceState)
{
var proxyOne = new Gateway.BackendOperation.BackendOperationOneSoapClient();
var proxyTwo = new Gateway.BackendOperationTwo.OperationTwoSoapClient();
var taskOne = Task<int>.Factory.FromAsync(proxyOne.BeginGetNumber, proxyOne.EndGetNumber, 10, serviceState);
var taskTwo = Task<int>.Factory.FromAsync(proxyTwo.BeginGetNumber, proxyTwo.EndGetNumber, 10, serviceState);
var tasks = new Queue<Task<int>>();
tasks.Enqueue(taskOne);
tasks.Enqueue(taskTwo);
return Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAll(tasks.ToArray(), innerTasks =>
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(serviceState);
int sum = 0;
foreach (var innerTask in innerTasks)
{
if (innerTask.IsFaulted)
{
tcs.SetException(innerTask.Exception);
callback(tcs.Task);
return;
}
if (innerTask.IsCompleted)
{
sum = innerTask.Result;
}
}
tcs.SetResult(sum);
callback(tcs.Task);
});
}
public int EndDoWork(IAsyncResult result)
{
try
{
return ((Task<int>)result).Result;
}
catch (AggregateException ex)
{
throw ex.InnerException;
}
}
}
My questions here are:
This code is using three threads: one that is instanced in the
BeginDoWork, another one that is instanced when the code enter
inside the anonymous method ContinueWhenAll, and the last one when
the callback is executed, in this case EndDoWork. Is that correct or
I’m doing something wrong on the calls? Should I use any
synchronization context? Note: The synchronization context is null
on the main thread.
What happen if I “share” information between
threads, for instance, the callback function? Will that cause a
performance issue or the anonymous method is like a closure where I
can share data?
With Framework 4.5 and Async and Await
Now with Framework 4.5, the code seems too much simple than before:
public async Task<int> DoWorkAsync(int count)
{
var proxyOne = new Backend.ServiceOne.ServiceOneClient();
var proxyTwo = new Backend.ServiceTwo.ServiceTwoClient();
var doWorkOne = proxyOne.DoWorkAsync(count);
var doWorkTwo = proxyTwo.DoWorkAsync(count);
var result = await Task.WhenAll(doWorkOne, doWorkTwo);
return doWorkOne.Result + doWorkTwo.Result;
}
But in this case when I debug the application, I always see that the code is executed on the same thread. So my questions here are:
3.. When I’m waiting for the “awaitable” code, is that thread released and goes back to the thread pool to execute more requests?
3.1. If So, I suppose that when I get a result from the await Task, the execution completes on the same thread that the call before. Is that possible? What happen if that thread is processing another request?
3.2 If Not, how can I release the thread to send it back to the thread pool with Asycn and Await pattern?
Thank you!
1. This code is using three threads: one that is instanced in the BeginDoWork, another one that is instanced when the code enter inside the anonymous method ContinueWhenAll, and the last one when the callback is executed, in this case EndDoWork. Is that correct or I’m doing something wrong on the calls? Should I use any synchronization context?
It's better to think in terms of "tasks" rather than "threads". You do have three tasks here, each of which will run on the thread pool, one at a time.
2. What happen if I “share” information between threads, for instance, the callback function? Will that cause a performance issue or the anonymous method is like a closure where I can share data?
You don't have to worry about synchronization because each of these tasks can't run concurrently. BeginDoWork registers the continuation just before returning, so it's already practically done when the continuation can run. EndDoWork will probably not be called until the continuation is complete; but even if it is, it will block until the continuation is complete.
(Technically, the continuation can start running before BeginDoWork completes, but BeginDoWork just returns at that point, so it doesn't matter).
3. When I’m waiting for the “awaitable” code, is that thread released and goes back to the thread pool to execute more requests?
Yes.
3.1. If So, I suppose that when I get a result from the await Task, the execution completes on the same thread that the call before. Is that possible? What happen if that thread is processing another request?
No. Your host (in this case, ASP.NET) may continue the async methods on any thread it happens to have available.
This is perfectly safe because only one thread is executing at a time.
P.S. I recommend
var result = await Task.WhenAll(doWorkOne, doWorkTwo);
return result[0] + result[1];
instead of
var result = await Task.WhenAll(doWorkOne, doWorkTwo);
return doWorkOne.Result + doWorkTwo.Result;
because Task.Result should be avoided in async programming.
Is it possible to use Async CTP to emulate continuations and tail recursion?
I'm thinking something along the lines of:
async Task Loop(int count)
{
if (count == 0)
retrun;
await ClearCallStack();
//is it possible to continue here with a clean call stack?
Loop(count -1)
}
I guess one needs a custom scheduler and such, but would it be possible?
(that is, can it be used to recurse w/o blowing the call stack)
Yes, this is entirely possible.
In the newest Async CTP (Refresh for VS2010 SP1), there's a "GeneralThreadAffineContext" class in the Unit Testing sample (either in VB or C#). That provides the requisite helper code for just running an async method in a general purpose thread-affine manner.
By thread affinity, we mean that the async continuations get processed on the same context as the original thread, similarly to the behavior for WinForms/WPF, but without spinning up the real WPF or WinForms message loop.
Task.Yield()'s design is to defer the rest of the current method to the SynchronizationContext, so you don't even need to write your own await ClearCallStack(). Instead, your sample will boil down to:
async Task DoLoop(int count)
{
// yield first if you want to ensure your entire body is in a continuation
// Final method will be off of Task, but you need to use TaskEx for the CTP
await TaskEx.Yield();
if (count == 0)
return;
//is it possible to continue here with a clean call stack?
DoLoop(count -1)
}
void Loop(int count)
{
// This is a stub helper to make DoLoop appear synchronous. Even though
// DoLoop is expressed recursively, no two frames of DoLoop will execute
// their bodies simultaneously
GeneralThreadAffineContext.Run(async () => { return DoLoop(count); });
}